There is a comment for my last article “Is Taiwan only the first step for China’s expansionist ambition?” which has reminded me that I haven’t provided enough context in the original series, and I should address it in a full article.
Very informative post, but only have one minor nitpick:
"Still, when the Korean War ended, no Chinese troops were stationed in North Korea, unlike the US troops in South Korea."
Not exactly correct: CPVA remained in North Korea until 1958. Withdrawal of Chinese troops was motivated by a number of factors (short version is that Mao, Kim Il-Sung, and many North Korean people wanted them withdrawn; for long version, would recommend "A Misunderstood Friendship: Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung, and Sino-North Korean Relations, 1949-1976" by Shen Zhihua and Xia Yafeng). Also, I think it's worth keeping in mind that China shares a land border with its North Korean ally: if it wants to provide prompt support during a crisis or a war, it can move troops up with ease. If the US wants to support its South Korean ally, those forces have to cross an ocean. Still, minor points that don't meaningfully detract from your overall argument.
---
On a more substantial note, would love to hear more about popular and official views within China on Russia. Understand that the two countries are currently aligned, and as you mentioned, the border disputes over which they nearly went to war in the 1970s were resolved by treaty in the 2000s. Is that really all there is to it though?
If the Century of Humiliation and the "unequal treaties" are formative elements of China's worldview, and China's historical boundaries considered matters of national pride and interest, is it really possible that the territorial concessions made to Russia during the 19th century can be waved away so easily? Aside from regaining land that was taken in a time of national weakness (and then confirmed at a time when China was stronger, but still had not quite come into its own), there are material interests involved: the Russian Far East contains considerable mineral resources; hosts significant military forces, such as the Russian Pacific Fleet; and, in the case of Russia's southeastern-most tip, a land border with North Korea that gives Russia an opportunity to meddle in a security dispute China may want to mediate by itself. All of this on land that was Chinese up until the 1850s.
If this is all considered "water under the bridge" among both the Chinese people and government, so much the better for all concerned (always preferrable for there to be fewer, rather than more, casus belli between massive nuclear powers). But given that China and the then-USSR nearly went to war over territory at a time when both (nominally) shared a common governing ideology, are now governed under plainly nationalist systems, and are really not united by anything more than shared distrust of the US and its allies, I am just not sure harmonious relations between Russia and China are a sure thing over the long term or even medium term. At the end of the day, treaties are just words on paper; historical memory and grievances can be far more durable.
None of the above is asked simply for rhetorical effect: genuinely interested in knowing what the state of this issue is in 2025, and how my (admittedly Western) perspective stacks up compared to facts on the ground.
Your question about Sino-Russia border dispute is very important.
My response is:
1) Yes, it's "water under the bridge" now. I think a big reason is just that both of us are now fully nuclear, which was not the case in 1969. Even though China already had nuclear weapons by then, those nukes didn't have adequate capability to act as enough deterrents. Nuclear parity helps solidify borders and helps China to feel much more secure vis-a-vis the Russians. On the other hand, those lost lands will be too hard for China to chew. And it's not just about Russia, but also involve Mongolia, the Stans, all of whom are sovereign states. Also, those lands have been away from China for several generations already and are well-populated. It's just no longer conceivable to take them back.
2) Is there any discussion about reclaiming these lands? Yes there is, this is a hot topic for a tiny group of online ultranationalists. But even when they talk about this issue, it's really about nostalgia and fantasizing "what if..." but there is no concrete idea of exactly how to win them back.
3) China knows who Russians are. They crush the weak, and only respect strength, which is a very different culture from China. That's why even with the current "alignment", there is still not a military alliance between the two, and I doubt there will ever be. We may be smiling to each other, but we know who they really are, and they know we know who they really are.
4) If Russia declines further and becomes even several magnitudes weaker than they are today, will China start to reconsider? It's still not a zero-chance scenario, but I suspect that will take several more decades at least, and by that time, even fewer people will care.
Your mention of a nuclear parity between Russia and China brings up a national security issue for China. If the Russian Federation does collapse, China has the problem of “loose nukes” on its border. “Keep your enemies close” will make it easier for China to do mop-up operations if necessary. Russia’s economy is minuscule compared to China and the West has no desire to secure and rebuild Russia if it should collapse again. China knows this and we can be sure that extensive plans are in place to secure the region if necessary.
Or, more likely WHEN necessary. There is no second in command in Moscow. If anything should happen to Putin, the oligarch warlords and their private militias will begin infighting… there goes the neighborhood.
Not really. The RF is run like a mafia oligarchy. If anything happens to the “Godfather” then bloody turf wars begin. We already witnessed the Wagner Group's attempted coup which came close to succeeding. Ukrainian agents and Russian dissonants are just waiting for their opportunity.
"China does not have an inspiring social and political system,"
probably should be...
"To western thinking, ie: individual over the collective thinking, China does not have an inspiring social and political system."
Sometimes I think you are too harsh and buy into the Human rights game as laid out by the Western education and media systems. Just look at the USA prison population, which provides real slave labour as allowed under the US Constitution, vs. China. To many Americans the high rate of incarceration and the benefits of slave labour in dangerous tasks like fighting wild fires is a proof that their system is superior, but I'm sure I'm not alone in disagreeing with that view point.
"Sometimes I think you are too harsh and buy into the Human rights game as laid out by the Western education and media systems. "
I need those rhetorics to make the more important messages heard. They are not necessarily what I believe, but I can understand why some of my readers think it that way. Here, the obviously MORE important message is that even if China's system doesn't "sound" appealing from afar, I can still argue that China is not interested in changing others, so it's a "we leave each other alone" situation and at least in terms of "war vs peace" we can have a common understanding.
And the reason I don't want to stress the superiority of one over another is precisely because I don't care about changing another's system :) It's quite consistent.
The "fighting wild fires" part is a much more layered situation than making it a single issue and calling the incarcerated "slave labor".
The carceral state is a deep sociological mess of conflicting and contradictory statements and goals. The firefighter program specifically, otoh, has created some good outcomes.
You and I come from very different placed ideologically but I have always admired your writing. One of my main gripes about Chinese China-explainers is that the empiricism and analytical clarity that one sees when they debunk the pessimistic or declinist views of Western China-watchers disappears when it comes to 'sensitive' topics or PRC red lines. Instead, explanations are couched in the language of realpolitik (rather than ideology) at best, or mendacious propaganda at worst. Personally, I believe there is ample evidence to suggest that Beijing is lying about the scope and nature of its crackdown in Xinjiang and Tibet. I am certain that I can expect no response that is remotely intellectually honest, dealing with the facts and stats at hand, but to your credit, I believe you've admitted that you cannot criticise Xi's Taiwan or HK policies (though you apparently agree with them).
When it comes to Taiwan, I'm astonished how flagrantly many Chinese intellectuals, the most history-conscious of their kind, ignore history. For instance, Kangxi's ambivalence is well known. Indeed, he once even declared the island to be outside his domain. Even if its accepted that the Qing empire finally asserted itself there, the Japanese soon took over. The role that the Japanese colonialists played in creating a Hoklo elite and distinct Taiwanese identity that subsequently took root is central, of course. Most Chinese either outright ignore this or simply use it to spuriously deny Taiwanese identity any legitimacy. I don't think 'One country, two systems' will work either. One country demands considerable free movement of people and goods, while the democratic system absolutely demands the free movement of information. There was bound to be a clash in Hong Kong sometime or the other and that was HK, with decades of pre '97 United Front work, corrupt, malformed institutions and civic culture and a PLA garrison. Taiwan is the opposite of all that and I think you and the best in Zhongnanhai know that the Chinese 'focus on the economics' argument is as deluded as the Democrats' similar formula for winning swing votes. The simple truth is that on this issue, China and the West come from radically different priors and I think fair-minded Chinese ought to accept that their priors are flawed in itself, or at least incomplete in its true implications. Hopefully, America will dissuade the Taiwanese from outright independence and maintain the current strategy of deterrence-assurance. I'm a little late but I hope for your response! Looking forward to more of your work!
PS Do check out Lin Hsiao-ting's Accidental State on Taiwan's founding. if you haven't already. His revisionist account undermines the 'retake the mainland' view pretty thoroughly. Apologies for grammatical errors. This was typed quickly.
Thanks for the comment. You mention "realpolitik", and it's an important word to understand in this case. You also mention "facts", but that is a more fluid concept.
The topic of "who belongs to whom" can quickly land in a non-fact-based land very quickly. For instance, does Hawaii belong to US? I bet 99% of Americans think in that way. But pre-1898 Hawaiian natives would hardly agree to it. By the same token, may even the entire USA shouldn't belong to the USA. You may think this is a digression (although I do think China has a better claim over Taiwan than US over Hawaii), but my point is, for this topic, it all depends on where you stand from, and the fact about the topic itself is less important than the fact of "what people believe".
And "what people believe" is what me and China's government (I don't represent them, but I can help translate their message) cares about. Just as more than 99% Americans believe Hawaii is America's rightful territory, more than 99% (or maybe more than 95%, but to that degree) of mainland Chinese believe Taiwan's rightfully Chinese land. And it's not just because of "CCP propaganda" and the wishful imagination of "government vs people". After all, The Republic of China also saw Taiwan as rightfully theirs, and Chiang made sure Formosa was added to Cairo Declaration.
In this case, the "people" actually believe more strongly than the "government", which tends to be more practical. The bottomline is, whichever government in China allowed a "complete independence" of Taiwan (whatever that means) to happen, will be toppled the next day, absolutely. There would be revolt, and no military would be called upon to put down that revolt. And the ensuing government/party will launch immediate war.
Another hard fact to note is that, if USA hadn't existed, or hadn't cared about Taiwan, the matter would be resolved instantly. So it's impossible to view this question as a PRC-ROC issue, but essentially a China-US issue (not to deny the agency of Taiwanese, but that's the crux of it).
All I can wish for, is for this issue to be resolved once and for all, without any bloodshed and certainly without dragging the world into WWIII.
Thanks for your response. The circumstances surrounding the annexation of Hawaii were very, very complex as I'm sure you know. By around 1898, native Hawaiians were in the numerical minority, with Japanese-Hawaiians making up around 40 percent of the population. Perhaps your appeal to Hawaiian natives can be extended to the Taiwanese aborigines as well? It must be said their own cultural memories are thorns on the DPP's side. The historical memory of conflicts with the first Hoklo colonialists and generous subsidies from the KMT regime have placed them in the blue camp (but the younger generation is apparently moving forward with the kind of 'woke' indigenous activism you see in the West). Here, it seems to me that you are appealing to Chinese people's historical memory and national aspirations at the expense of Taiwanese people, ethnic Han or aborigine. I cannot help note that American people and the US government would react very differently to calls for Hawaiian independence or self-determination.
As for the Cairo declaration, there is ample evidence that it was merely a statement of intent between three leaders and not a binding treaty, and Formosa's de jure status is still undetermined. Digressing for a moment, there is no question in my view that the Kinmen island belong to the ROC. The Fujianese people of those islands don't fit into the green national narrative.
You note that had the US not 'existed', this matter would have been resolved instantly. Chiang owed the survival of his regime to the Korean war, which China helped prolong (as you elucidate yourself). So in more ways than one, it may well be said that Taiwan might not have been an issue had the Chinese Communists not existed. My biggest quibble with your response is your suggestion that it is the US that stands before China on this issue. I believe this is completely wrong. Take the case of the Israel-Palestine dispute. In the initial decades of the conflict, it was the Israel-Arab dispute, with the Americans seeing the Israelis as a bulwark against Soviet-backed Arab nationalist regimes. But the Cold War implications have completely disappeared from the conflict, with the national aspirations of the Palestinian people (and what I consider the expansionism of the Israelis) the only factors at play THAT PRECLUDE A SETTLEMENT. I'm not remotely suggesting that America is blameless here (quite the opposite, in this case, maybe), but you see my point. Quite simply, I do not believe America (or American people who seemingly support Taiwan in considerable numbers as well) would defend Taiwan if Taiwan wasn't what it was today. It is Taiwanese national aspirations that truly stand before unification, aided by American guns but not led by it. Thanks again for your response and I hope I wasn't too tedious!
you know an essay is good when you are dying to get to the end and check out the comment section. such is this Robert.
im no history nerd like you, and def not versed in the timeline of CPVA stationary and withdrawal in North Korea like your other commentators, but i think one discussion/differentiation could be drawn is between 1) unification, 2) disputed territories, and 3) expansion.
North and South Korea are technically still in a civil war. Each probably considers the other half part of its own. In one's effort to 1) unify the other, one wouldnt be defined as a 3) expansionist. The whole peninsula is considered a 2) disputed territory.
However, say if the North ever conquers the South and then went on to look at Japan, or.... if the South takes over the North and then craves Yanbian 延边, then that's a solid 3).
China and Taiwan are not in a civil war, but i think it’s more fair to call the "Taiwan Straits" a 2) disputed territory and this conflict between the two sides a matter of 1) unification, than 3) expansion. The territory is disputed with heavy historical context and only relative to each other, not to a third party. If China were to ever take over Taiwan militarily, it may be accused of domestic violence, but not serial murder.
"The US role in the region would have lost all credibility. "
Oh good. Cuz the US has been wonderful in the region hasn't it? The suffering of the Filipinos under the US puppet Marcos, the suffering the Chinese Indonesians under a genocide instigated by the US CIA, the suffering of the Indonesians under the US supported dictator Suharto, the suffering of the Cambodians as the most bombed nation in history as a result of the US bombing campaign, the suffering of the Vietnamese.... Yes, the US has certainly been wonderful to South East Asia. With so much wonderfulness, no wonder we don't think that China can do worse.
As for the US having lost credibility. You already have. And not through China's actions but your own over the last 30 years of unipolar nightmare. But the last year of watching US Democrat and Republican unwavering fealty to the Israeli regime joyfully slaughtering Muslim babies in Palestine has been the icing on the rotten cake. Why do you think both Malaysia and Indonesia, majority Muslim nations, are now seeking to join BRICS? This was a direct result of US actions not China's. In reality, we should never have given any credibility to the country that had a defence treaty with Korea and subsequently handed it over the Japanese on a plate rather than upholding it because Roosevelt decided it was more lucrative for the US oligarchs to keep selling oil and steel to the Japanese.
I find it extraordinary how the geostrategic needs and consequent responses of sovereign countries to secure their own security against American hegemony and control is constantly presented as aggressive expansionism. When the only reason for their actions is the need brought about by the American desire to take them down and control them. Westerners always point to these actions but conveniently omit talking about the cause of these actions, which is Western aggression necessitating the consequent response. Why would any sovereign country in the Global South trust a country that lied about WMDs in Iraq to manipulate the UN into approving an otherwise illegal invasion, that occupied Afghanistan and then stole the money of the Afghan people because the "wrong" people came into power, that in breach of international law blew up the infrastructure of another sovereign nation to force it to toe its line, that has protected the Israeli government all the while claiming that it is upholding international law despite the clear violation of the same by the Israeli government. Any government with half a working braincell would seek to hedge against American aggression lest it get turned against it one day, not genuflect to the bully the way the Europeans have. And powers of the level of China and Russia would inevitably seek to secure themselves against that kind of manipulation and aggression. But when they do so, the US screams "aggression!" when it is the sole and only cause for their need to protect themselves. After all, the US has stated its intentions very very loudly and clearly: it has to be the Emperor of the world and we must trust it to act benignly because it calls itself a "democracy". How much it can be trusted to be fettered by its citizens was made abundantly clear when US citizens were the leading foaming-at-the-mouth proponents of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. And in fact US citizens can't even get the US government to act benignly towards them much less other peoples around the world.
Why are you Westerners so keen to tell us South East Asians how to deal with China like we are little children who don't know better and must have a Big White Wise Savior to tell us what to do? We have our own agency in the matter, our own ability to deal with China on our own terms, and our own ability to assess what our own interests are. We definitely don't need the people who raped and pillaged us for over 200 years telling us how to run our foreign affairs for our own good. And we definitely don't need you interfering in our internal affairs for "our own good".
And BTW you guys have never had a problem with non-democratic authoritarian regimes when the leaders of those regimes danced to the CIA tune. So don't start your own special pleading now.
So much special pleading and you-have-to-understand-China stuff here, one doesn’t know where to begin. The simple point is that China’s ambit claim is so big, that were it to achieve its goals, the occupation of Taiwan and control of the South China Sea, it wouldn’t need to invade anyone else. Regional states and neighbours would all turn like sunflowers to the pre-eminent power in Peking. The US role in the region would have lost all credibility. The only possible holdouts, Japan and Korea, might try to go nuclear as a hedge. But their populations are so divided, it’s an open question whether their governments could ever be decisive enough.
Also quite reasonable is being worried that a predominant CCP would treat its neighbours the same way it treats its own powerless subjects. A refusal to entertain Hwawei at the core of its broadband and 5G networks, and a reasonable call for an enquiry into Covid origins, brought down massive unilateral trade penalties on Australia that were in total violation of the FTA China had just signed.
These are reasonable concerns tbh. But I do feel many Americans do live under the fantasy that China will literally invade other countries, and this is what I am clearing here.
In non-military spheres, can we be fairer and more sophisticated to other nations? I hope so.
It's clear that you have not been to any protests in China, which happen all the time. Tiananmen protests were and are relatively speaking a clear indication of the degree of power that citizens retain in China, compared to either the Yellow Vests or January 06.
Generally, I'm with your main thesis. There are a couple things that are so obvious to me, and I'm mildly surprised they get so little thought or attention, to whit...
1. Tibet has been part of China, and China part of Tibet several times over the last couple thousand years. Lost in the discussion is the fact that Tibet is the water supply for all of China, most of NE'asterly India and all of SE Asia. One could quibble by noting a few small water sources, but Tibet is the water reservoir for a few billion people. If you're a world power, and the water tap isn't in your control, what do you do? And, the Hollywood depictions of Tibet pre China takeover as a lovely Buddhist paradise ignore the total societal mess that Tibet had descended into. It's not pleasant and it doesn't plug into happy Hollywood storylines of Buddhist blissfulness, but it's all understandable.
2. The McMahon Line never gets any attention. Similar to the mess the Brits created in the Middle East with peremptorily reallocating lands to various parties and entities, the Brits drawing the McMahon line set in motion at least a century of conflict.
3. Aside from all the other stuff, Taiwan is the open water/deep water port any country ascending to geopolitical significance has to have. Absent the East coast of Taiwan, China is locked inside the island chain. Any country looking to defend oneself and project power, not just display power, has to have that, or those, ports. Argue it however else one wants, but that's the hard fact. There's a reason the US took Hawaii; it's the ideal staging ground for power projection.
4. China doesn't have to war with India or ASEAN. It controls the water tap...see #1. When the new dam is completed, who needs to go to war? Turn off the water. And all China proclamations that it would never do such a thing....please...
This stuff ain't beanbag. It'd be nice if it was, but history tells us how this stuff plays.
Question regarding #1, what was the societal mess that Tibet had fallen into? As an exchange student, I visited in 2008 and it honestly seemed good, if anything there was anxiety coming with the train being built and influx of Han Chinese. (Let me be clear, I am not trolling and do realize my extent was one visit over 15 years, so more curious for clarification)
Yes, exactly. I am in no way endorsing any political or military act, but the reality of Tibet was a failed society of mini-fiefdoms, squabbling princes and associated families with the majority population living as slaves/serfs.
Robert's response below.... By 2008, it was already being turned into the "happy" tourist destination it now claims to be. That does not mean Tibetans are happy with it. Many/most aren't. But, it's 2025. Tibet is now China whether or not Western media and Hollywood want to admit it.
Tibet wasn't part of China, until it was, then it wasn't, then it was, then China was part of Tibet, then it wasn't, then Tibet descended into chaos, and now it's China. I wouldn't anticipate that changing for a very long time. There are a few more was and wasn't's in there if you go way, way back.
I don’t know why you would call China’s system “authoritarian” when there is so much more evidence of authoritarianism in the US. Just think of how the police in the US treats ordinary people who are not wealthy. Also think how the US elites are so intolerant of pro-Palestine demonstrators. I don’t think Chinese police would ever threaten let alone kill innocent civilians the way American police
The only sense that China is “authoritarian” is China doesn’t allow the wealthy oligarch to dictate policy. So the wealthy elites would fee the Chinese government to be “authoritarian” whereas they don’t feel the same way in the US which worships their oligarchs.
Please be more careful about your terms. Calling China authoritarian only serves to delegitimise the Chinese government and legitimises Western interference in China’s internal affairs.
Very informative post, but only have one minor nitpick:
"Still, when the Korean War ended, no Chinese troops were stationed in North Korea, unlike the US troops in South Korea."
Not exactly correct: CPVA remained in North Korea until 1958. Withdrawal of Chinese troops was motivated by a number of factors (short version is that Mao, Kim Il-Sung, and many North Korean people wanted them withdrawn; for long version, would recommend "A Misunderstood Friendship: Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung, and Sino-North Korean Relations, 1949-1976" by Shen Zhihua and Xia Yafeng). Also, I think it's worth keeping in mind that China shares a land border with its North Korean ally: if it wants to provide prompt support during a crisis or a war, it can move troops up with ease. If the US wants to support its South Korean ally, those forces have to cross an ocean. Still, minor points that don't meaningfully detract from your overall argument.
---
On a more substantial note, would love to hear more about popular and official views within China on Russia. Understand that the two countries are currently aligned, and as you mentioned, the border disputes over which they nearly went to war in the 1970s were resolved by treaty in the 2000s. Is that really all there is to it though?
If the Century of Humiliation and the "unequal treaties" are formative elements of China's worldview, and China's historical boundaries considered matters of national pride and interest, is it really possible that the territorial concessions made to Russia during the 19th century can be waved away so easily? Aside from regaining land that was taken in a time of national weakness (and then confirmed at a time when China was stronger, but still had not quite come into its own), there are material interests involved: the Russian Far East contains considerable mineral resources; hosts significant military forces, such as the Russian Pacific Fleet; and, in the case of Russia's southeastern-most tip, a land border with North Korea that gives Russia an opportunity to meddle in a security dispute China may want to mediate by itself. All of this on land that was Chinese up until the 1850s.
If this is all considered "water under the bridge" among both the Chinese people and government, so much the better for all concerned (always preferrable for there to be fewer, rather than more, casus belli between massive nuclear powers). But given that China and the then-USSR nearly went to war over territory at a time when both (nominally) shared a common governing ideology, are now governed under plainly nationalist systems, and are really not united by anything more than shared distrust of the US and its allies, I am just not sure harmonious relations between Russia and China are a sure thing over the long term or even medium term. At the end of the day, treaties are just words on paper; historical memory and grievances can be far more durable.
None of the above is asked simply for rhetorical effect: genuinely interested in knowing what the state of this issue is in 2025, and how my (admittedly Western) perspective stacks up compared to facts on the ground.
Thanks for the addition!
Your question about Sino-Russia border dispute is very important.
My response is:
1) Yes, it's "water under the bridge" now. I think a big reason is just that both of us are now fully nuclear, which was not the case in 1969. Even though China already had nuclear weapons by then, those nukes didn't have adequate capability to act as enough deterrents. Nuclear parity helps solidify borders and helps China to feel much more secure vis-a-vis the Russians. On the other hand, those lost lands will be too hard for China to chew. And it's not just about Russia, but also involve Mongolia, the Stans, all of whom are sovereign states. Also, those lands have been away from China for several generations already and are well-populated. It's just no longer conceivable to take them back.
2) Is there any discussion about reclaiming these lands? Yes there is, this is a hot topic for a tiny group of online ultranationalists. But even when they talk about this issue, it's really about nostalgia and fantasizing "what if..." but there is no concrete idea of exactly how to win them back.
3) China knows who Russians are. They crush the weak, and only respect strength, which is a very different culture from China. That's why even with the current "alignment", there is still not a military alliance between the two, and I doubt there will ever be. We may be smiling to each other, but we know who they really are, and they know we know who they really are.
4) If Russia declines further and becomes even several magnitudes weaker than they are today, will China start to reconsider? It's still not a zero-chance scenario, but I suspect that will take several more decades at least, and by that time, even fewer people will care.
Your mention of a nuclear parity between Russia and China brings up a national security issue for China. If the Russian Federation does collapse, China has the problem of “loose nukes” on its border. “Keep your enemies close” will make it easier for China to do mop-up operations if necessary. Russia’s economy is minuscule compared to China and the West has no desire to secure and rebuild Russia if it should collapse again. China knows this and we can be sure that extensive plans are in place to secure the region if necessary.
I can imagine that. IF necessary.
Or, more likely WHEN necessary. There is no second in command in Moscow. If anything should happen to Putin, the oligarch warlords and their private militias will begin infighting… there goes the neighborhood.
"There is no second in command in Moscow."
You don't do your argument any favors with that statement.
Not really. The RF is run like a mafia oligarchy. If anything happens to the “Godfather” then bloody turf wars begin. We already witnessed the Wagner Group's attempted coup which came close to succeeding. Ukrainian agents and Russian dissonants are just waiting for their opportunity.
"China does not have an inspiring social and political system,"
probably should be...
"To western thinking, ie: individual over the collective thinking, China does not have an inspiring social and political system."
Sometimes I think you are too harsh and buy into the Human rights game as laid out by the Western education and media systems. Just look at the USA prison population, which provides real slave labour as allowed under the US Constitution, vs. China. To many Americans the high rate of incarceration and the benefits of slave labour in dangerous tasks like fighting wild fires is a proof that their system is superior, but I'm sure I'm not alone in disagreeing with that view point.
"Sometimes I think you are too harsh and buy into the Human rights game as laid out by the Western education and media systems. "
I need those rhetorics to make the more important messages heard. They are not necessarily what I believe, but I can understand why some of my readers think it that way. Here, the obviously MORE important message is that even if China's system doesn't "sound" appealing from afar, I can still argue that China is not interested in changing others, so it's a "we leave each other alone" situation and at least in terms of "war vs peace" we can have a common understanding.
And the reason I don't want to stress the superiority of one over another is precisely because I don't care about changing another's system :) It's quite consistent.
The "fighting wild fires" part is a much more layered situation than making it a single issue and calling the incarcerated "slave labor".
The carceral state is a deep sociological mess of conflicting and contradictory statements and goals. The firefighter program specifically, otoh, has created some good outcomes.
You and I come from very different placed ideologically but I have always admired your writing. One of my main gripes about Chinese China-explainers is that the empiricism and analytical clarity that one sees when they debunk the pessimistic or declinist views of Western China-watchers disappears when it comes to 'sensitive' topics or PRC red lines. Instead, explanations are couched in the language of realpolitik (rather than ideology) at best, or mendacious propaganda at worst. Personally, I believe there is ample evidence to suggest that Beijing is lying about the scope and nature of its crackdown in Xinjiang and Tibet. I am certain that I can expect no response that is remotely intellectually honest, dealing with the facts and stats at hand, but to your credit, I believe you've admitted that you cannot criticise Xi's Taiwan or HK policies (though you apparently agree with them).
When it comes to Taiwan, I'm astonished how flagrantly many Chinese intellectuals, the most history-conscious of their kind, ignore history. For instance, Kangxi's ambivalence is well known. Indeed, he once even declared the island to be outside his domain. Even if its accepted that the Qing empire finally asserted itself there, the Japanese soon took over. The role that the Japanese colonialists played in creating a Hoklo elite and distinct Taiwanese identity that subsequently took root is central, of course. Most Chinese either outright ignore this or simply use it to spuriously deny Taiwanese identity any legitimacy. I don't think 'One country, two systems' will work either. One country demands considerable free movement of people and goods, while the democratic system absolutely demands the free movement of information. There was bound to be a clash in Hong Kong sometime or the other and that was HK, with decades of pre '97 United Front work, corrupt, malformed institutions and civic culture and a PLA garrison. Taiwan is the opposite of all that and I think you and the best in Zhongnanhai know that the Chinese 'focus on the economics' argument is as deluded as the Democrats' similar formula for winning swing votes. The simple truth is that on this issue, China and the West come from radically different priors and I think fair-minded Chinese ought to accept that their priors are flawed in itself, or at least incomplete in its true implications. Hopefully, America will dissuade the Taiwanese from outright independence and maintain the current strategy of deterrence-assurance. I'm a little late but I hope for your response! Looking forward to more of your work!
PS Do check out Lin Hsiao-ting's Accidental State on Taiwan's founding. if you haven't already. His revisionist account undermines the 'retake the mainland' view pretty thoroughly. Apologies for grammatical errors. This was typed quickly.
Thanks for the comment. You mention "realpolitik", and it's an important word to understand in this case. You also mention "facts", but that is a more fluid concept.
The topic of "who belongs to whom" can quickly land in a non-fact-based land very quickly. For instance, does Hawaii belong to US? I bet 99% of Americans think in that way. But pre-1898 Hawaiian natives would hardly agree to it. By the same token, may even the entire USA shouldn't belong to the USA. You may think this is a digression (although I do think China has a better claim over Taiwan than US over Hawaii), but my point is, for this topic, it all depends on where you stand from, and the fact about the topic itself is less important than the fact of "what people believe".
And "what people believe" is what me and China's government (I don't represent them, but I can help translate their message) cares about. Just as more than 99% Americans believe Hawaii is America's rightful territory, more than 99% (or maybe more than 95%, but to that degree) of mainland Chinese believe Taiwan's rightfully Chinese land. And it's not just because of "CCP propaganda" and the wishful imagination of "government vs people". After all, The Republic of China also saw Taiwan as rightfully theirs, and Chiang made sure Formosa was added to Cairo Declaration.
In this case, the "people" actually believe more strongly than the "government", which tends to be more practical. The bottomline is, whichever government in China allowed a "complete independence" of Taiwan (whatever that means) to happen, will be toppled the next day, absolutely. There would be revolt, and no military would be called upon to put down that revolt. And the ensuing government/party will launch immediate war.
Another hard fact to note is that, if USA hadn't existed, or hadn't cared about Taiwan, the matter would be resolved instantly. So it's impossible to view this question as a PRC-ROC issue, but essentially a China-US issue (not to deny the agency of Taiwanese, but that's the crux of it).
All I can wish for, is for this issue to be resolved once and for all, without any bloodshed and certainly without dragging the world into WWIII.
Thanks for your response. The circumstances surrounding the annexation of Hawaii were very, very complex as I'm sure you know. By around 1898, native Hawaiians were in the numerical minority, with Japanese-Hawaiians making up around 40 percent of the population. Perhaps your appeal to Hawaiian natives can be extended to the Taiwanese aborigines as well? It must be said their own cultural memories are thorns on the DPP's side. The historical memory of conflicts with the first Hoklo colonialists and generous subsidies from the KMT regime have placed them in the blue camp (but the younger generation is apparently moving forward with the kind of 'woke' indigenous activism you see in the West). Here, it seems to me that you are appealing to Chinese people's historical memory and national aspirations at the expense of Taiwanese people, ethnic Han or aborigine. I cannot help note that American people and the US government would react very differently to calls for Hawaiian independence or self-determination.
As for the Cairo declaration, there is ample evidence that it was merely a statement of intent between three leaders and not a binding treaty, and Formosa's de jure status is still undetermined. Digressing for a moment, there is no question in my view that the Kinmen island belong to the ROC. The Fujianese people of those islands don't fit into the green national narrative.
You note that had the US not 'existed', this matter would have been resolved instantly. Chiang owed the survival of his regime to the Korean war, which China helped prolong (as you elucidate yourself). So in more ways than one, it may well be said that Taiwan might not have been an issue had the Chinese Communists not existed. My biggest quibble with your response is your suggestion that it is the US that stands before China on this issue. I believe this is completely wrong. Take the case of the Israel-Palestine dispute. In the initial decades of the conflict, it was the Israel-Arab dispute, with the Americans seeing the Israelis as a bulwark against Soviet-backed Arab nationalist regimes. But the Cold War implications have completely disappeared from the conflict, with the national aspirations of the Palestinian people (and what I consider the expansionism of the Israelis) the only factors at play THAT PRECLUDE A SETTLEMENT. I'm not remotely suggesting that America is blameless here (quite the opposite, in this case, maybe), but you see my point. Quite simply, I do not believe America (or American people who seemingly support Taiwan in considerable numbers as well) would defend Taiwan if Taiwan wasn't what it was today. It is Taiwanese national aspirations that truly stand before unification, aided by American guns but not led by it. Thanks again for your response and I hope I wasn't too tedious!
you know an essay is good when you are dying to get to the end and check out the comment section. such is this Robert.
im no history nerd like you, and def not versed in the timeline of CPVA stationary and withdrawal in North Korea like your other commentators, but i think one discussion/differentiation could be drawn is between 1) unification, 2) disputed territories, and 3) expansion.
North and South Korea are technically still in a civil war. Each probably considers the other half part of its own. In one's effort to 1) unify the other, one wouldnt be defined as a 3) expansionist. The whole peninsula is considered a 2) disputed territory.
However, say if the North ever conquers the South and then went on to look at Japan, or.... if the South takes over the North and then craves Yanbian 延边, then that's a solid 3).
China and Taiwan are not in a civil war, but i think it’s more fair to call the "Taiwan Straits" a 2) disputed territory and this conflict between the two sides a matter of 1) unification, than 3) expansion. The territory is disputed with heavy historical context and only relative to each other, not to a third party. If China were to ever take over Taiwan militarily, it may be accused of domestic violence, but not serial murder.
"The US role in the region would have lost all credibility. "
Oh good. Cuz the US has been wonderful in the region hasn't it? The suffering of the Filipinos under the US puppet Marcos, the suffering the Chinese Indonesians under a genocide instigated by the US CIA, the suffering of the Indonesians under the US supported dictator Suharto, the suffering of the Cambodians as the most bombed nation in history as a result of the US bombing campaign, the suffering of the Vietnamese.... Yes, the US has certainly been wonderful to South East Asia. With so much wonderfulness, no wonder we don't think that China can do worse.
As for the US having lost credibility. You already have. And not through China's actions but your own over the last 30 years of unipolar nightmare. But the last year of watching US Democrat and Republican unwavering fealty to the Israeli regime joyfully slaughtering Muslim babies in Palestine has been the icing on the rotten cake. Why do you think both Malaysia and Indonesia, majority Muslim nations, are now seeking to join BRICS? This was a direct result of US actions not China's. In reality, we should never have given any credibility to the country that had a defence treaty with Korea and subsequently handed it over the Japanese on a plate rather than upholding it because Roosevelt decided it was more lucrative for the US oligarchs to keep selling oil and steel to the Japanese.
I find it extraordinary how the geostrategic needs and consequent responses of sovereign countries to secure their own security against American hegemony and control is constantly presented as aggressive expansionism. When the only reason for their actions is the need brought about by the American desire to take them down and control them. Westerners always point to these actions but conveniently omit talking about the cause of these actions, which is Western aggression necessitating the consequent response. Why would any sovereign country in the Global South trust a country that lied about WMDs in Iraq to manipulate the UN into approving an otherwise illegal invasion, that occupied Afghanistan and then stole the money of the Afghan people because the "wrong" people came into power, that in breach of international law blew up the infrastructure of another sovereign nation to force it to toe its line, that has protected the Israeli government all the while claiming that it is upholding international law despite the clear violation of the same by the Israeli government. Any government with half a working braincell would seek to hedge against American aggression lest it get turned against it one day, not genuflect to the bully the way the Europeans have. And powers of the level of China and Russia would inevitably seek to secure themselves against that kind of manipulation and aggression. But when they do so, the US screams "aggression!" when it is the sole and only cause for their need to protect themselves. After all, the US has stated its intentions very very loudly and clearly: it has to be the Emperor of the world and we must trust it to act benignly because it calls itself a "democracy". How much it can be trusted to be fettered by its citizens was made abundantly clear when US citizens were the leading foaming-at-the-mouth proponents of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. And in fact US citizens can't even get the US government to act benignly towards them much less other peoples around the world.
Why are you Westerners so keen to tell us South East Asians how to deal with China like we are little children who don't know better and must have a Big White Wise Savior to tell us what to do? We have our own agency in the matter, our own ability to deal with China on our own terms, and our own ability to assess what our own interests are. We definitely don't need the people who raped and pillaged us for over 200 years telling us how to run our foreign affairs for our own good. And we definitely don't need you interfering in our internal affairs for "our own good".
And BTW you guys have never had a problem with non-democratic authoritarian regimes when the leaders of those regimes danced to the CIA tune. So don't start your own special pleading now.
Charles, I am assuming you are responding to the other comment?
Yes, I was responding to a comment. But I realise now that that comment has disappeared. Happy to remove my comment if you think it best.
no problem, thanks for clarifying!
Amen. Nothing else needs to be added to that.
In the U.S. we even willfully elected an avowed authoritarian and imperialist as President. Yes, confidence is lost both in the East and the West.
So much special pleading and you-have-to-understand-China stuff here, one doesn’t know where to begin. The simple point is that China’s ambit claim is so big, that were it to achieve its goals, the occupation of Taiwan and control of the South China Sea, it wouldn’t need to invade anyone else. Regional states and neighbours would all turn like sunflowers to the pre-eminent power in Peking. The US role in the region would have lost all credibility. The only possible holdouts, Japan and Korea, might try to go nuclear as a hedge. But their populations are so divided, it’s an open question whether their governments could ever be decisive enough.
Also quite reasonable is being worried that a predominant CCP would treat its neighbours the same way it treats its own powerless subjects. A refusal to entertain Hwawei at the core of its broadband and 5G networks, and a reasonable call for an enquiry into Covid origins, brought down massive unilateral trade penalties on Australia that were in total violation of the FTA China had just signed.
These are reasonable concerns tbh. But I do feel many Americans do live under the fantasy that China will literally invade other countries, and this is what I am clearing here.
In non-military spheres, can we be fairer and more sophisticated to other nations? I hope so.
"...its own powerless subjects."
It's clear that you have not been to any protests in China, which happen all the time. Tiananmen protests were and are relatively speaking a clear indication of the degree of power that citizens retain in China, compared to either the Yellow Vests or January 06.
Oh give me a break.
Sorry, but you're not on my payroll, but you can try again with the USAID to apply for your break, eventually they will resume service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gate_of_Heavenly_Peace_(film)
American, living in Wuhan for 15 years.....
Generally, I'm with your main thesis. There are a couple things that are so obvious to me, and I'm mildly surprised they get so little thought or attention, to whit...
1. Tibet has been part of China, and China part of Tibet several times over the last couple thousand years. Lost in the discussion is the fact that Tibet is the water supply for all of China, most of NE'asterly India and all of SE Asia. One could quibble by noting a few small water sources, but Tibet is the water reservoir for a few billion people. If you're a world power, and the water tap isn't in your control, what do you do? And, the Hollywood depictions of Tibet pre China takeover as a lovely Buddhist paradise ignore the total societal mess that Tibet had descended into. It's not pleasant and it doesn't plug into happy Hollywood storylines of Buddhist blissfulness, but it's all understandable.
2. The McMahon Line never gets any attention. Similar to the mess the Brits created in the Middle East with peremptorily reallocating lands to various parties and entities, the Brits drawing the McMahon line set in motion at least a century of conflict.
3. Aside from all the other stuff, Taiwan is the open water/deep water port any country ascending to geopolitical significance has to have. Absent the East coast of Taiwan, China is locked inside the island chain. Any country looking to defend oneself and project power, not just display power, has to have that, or those, ports. Argue it however else one wants, but that's the hard fact. There's a reason the US took Hawaii; it's the ideal staging ground for power projection.
4. China doesn't have to war with India or ASEAN. It controls the water tap...see #1. When the new dam is completed, who needs to go to war? Turn off the water. And all China proclamations that it would never do such a thing....please...
This stuff ain't beanbag. It'd be nice if it was, but history tells us how this stuff plays.
Hi Kurt,
Question regarding #1, what was the societal mess that Tibet had fallen into? As an exchange student, I visited in 2008 and it honestly seemed good, if anything there was anxiety coming with the train being built and influx of Han Chinese. (Let me be clear, I am not trolling and do realize my extent was one visit over 15 years, so more curious for clarification)
I think Kurt is referring to Tibet pre-1950
Yes, exactly. I am in no way endorsing any political or military act, but the reality of Tibet was a failed society of mini-fiefdoms, squabbling princes and associated families with the majority population living as slaves/serfs.
Robert's response below.... By 2008, it was already being turned into the "happy" tourist destination it now claims to be. That does not mean Tibetans are happy with it. Many/most aren't. But, it's 2025. Tibet is now China whether or not Western media and Hollywood want to admit it.
Algeria was a part of France… until it wasn’t.
Tibet wasn't part of China, until it was, then it wasn't, then it was, then China was part of Tibet, then it wasn't, then Tibet descended into chaos, and now it's China. I wouldn't anticipate that changing for a very long time. There are a few more was and wasn't's in there if you go way, way back.
I don’t know why you would call China’s system “authoritarian” when there is so much more evidence of authoritarianism in the US. Just think of how the police in the US treats ordinary people who are not wealthy. Also think how the US elites are so intolerant of pro-Palestine demonstrators. I don’t think Chinese police would ever threaten let alone kill innocent civilians the way American police
The only sense that China is “authoritarian” is China doesn’t allow the wealthy oligarch to dictate policy. So the wealthy elites would fee the Chinese government to be “authoritarian” whereas they don’t feel the same way in the US which worships their oligarchs.
Please be more careful about your terms. Calling China authoritarian only serves to delegitimise the Chinese government and legitimises Western interference in China’s internal affairs.