Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Trump doesn't even have an articulated opinion on China. The whole of his feelings are "China is benefiting from trade with us and therefore there is more flesh we could extract out of the deal, we therefore must be getting the short end of the stick, GINA!" And secretly "maybe the guys will finally respect me if I pass a trade deal favorable to them".

He didn't even fucking understand you don't publicly talk about talking to the Taiwanese government. How much space even exists below that level of knowledge on Chinese geopolitics?

[redwallzyl]

Well this is what happens when the leader of the US doesn't even know what geopolitics are let alone complex theories of international relations.

[smjjames]

I suspect he knew something about it and decided to challenge the status quo, but had no idea why it was that way or how much of a problem it was, but China did the equivalent of a dragon breathing hot air down your neck and he quietly backed down.

[Culise]

I'd say better to befriend the growing superpower than immediately cast yourself in opposition, as a target to be taken down to prove its own strength.

For the US in particular, however (given that we're talking Trump and broken clocks), that's essentially a non-starter unless they do a full-on withdrawal from East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.  As the presently-extant superpower, they simply have their fingers in too many pies for China to really tolerate as an emerging superpower ready to carve out their own place in the sun, and they're going to be a target to prove one's strength unless they completely abdicate their status as superpower and withdraw not just to the Americas, but within their own borders.  After all, carving out your place in the sun all too often means you need to carve it out of someone else; it's not a moral judgment, but simply a matter of how things seem to often end up being in effect.

[Culise]

Ah, but I didn't say direct opposition, nor did you in your original post.  I thought you meant any form of opposition, which could be direct or oblique, diplomatic or militant, or otherwise.  Any support to the claims of ASEAN nations in the South China Sea is an act of opposition to China, as is opposition to the DPRK.  The Seventh Fleet as it presently stands is a threat in being to China as well by its existence, and you can certainly expect Xi to have considered that when he called for a new plan to fully modernize the PLA by 2035 and make it capable of fighting worldwide by 2050; while an extension of long-standing trends, the PLA includes the PLAN, and fighting worldwide requires a blue-water navy appropriate to China's growing position abroad.  The mere existence of the US support for Taiwan is fully a thumbing of noses at Beijing's claims, and it seems to be one that they're increasingly unwilling to tolerate given the rather pointed remarks that very carefully did not mention the Democratic Progressive Party or its pro-independence positions.  Chinese conflicts with Japan over Diaoyu makes any support of Japan a oblique act of opposition to China in the matter due to those two nations being in opposition over the matter and neither side being willing to accept anything less than total victory. 

If you had, however, meant direct opposition and direct opposition only by your original post, then I'd have to suggest that oblique forms of opposition do exist.  Moreover, not all powers necessarily view opposition in the same way.  China, I'm also concerned, is creating opposition where it doesn't need to exist.  They, in the narrow-minded pride of young nations (and isn't it a hoot to call China "young"), have been very militant about their myriad border conflicts of late, which naturally drives nations together in opposition: India, Bhutan, Japan, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and amusingly, both Koreas (their position in the DPRK is maintained because they have nowhere else to turn).  If China were not so militant over the Paracels, Spratleys, McMahon Line, and Aksai Chin, they could actually make serious headway in developing a strong diplomatic position in Southeast and South Asia if their growing rapport with Laos, Burma/Myanmar, and in Africa are anything to judge by.  Unfortunately, their "surrender to us or go against us" policies are forcing many small nations into a position of direct opposition where they do not necessarily wish to be, and if the US happens to suggest that this may be a little unfair to them or that the Nine-Dash Line happens to be a travesty of international maritime law, that is itself another act of opposition to China. 

EDIT: Accidentally listed Malaysia twice where I meant Myanmar. >_<

[Descan]

Trump doesn't even have an articulated opinion on China. The whole of his feelings are "China is benefiting from trade with us and therefore there is more flesh we could extract out of the deal, we therefore must be getting the short end of the stick, GINA!" And secretly "maybe the guys will finally respect me if I pass a trade deal favorable to them".

He didn't even fucking understand you don't publicly talk about talking to the Taiwanese government. How much space even exists below that level of knowledge on Chinese geopolitics?

I think it's just a few centimeters below that and "What's a Taiwan? Some kinda dumpling?" or even "What's a China? Some sort of drink?"

[Loud Whispers]

Well this is what happens when the leader of the US doesn't even know what geopolitics are let alone complex theories of international relations.

International relations is pretty simple tbh

Well, we'll see where China stands in the next 30 years. It's entirely possible that the US loses a great deal of ground to them and makes no real opposition, or that Xi doesn't properly resolve issues with his succession before his retirement and/or death (assuming he does retire after the usual 10 year period, which seems unlikely). As for my earlier post, I guess a better phrase would be "antagonistic" rather than "in opposition". Threatening trade wars, directly acknowledging Taiwan, and publicly considering labeling China a currency manipulator is definitely what I would consider antagonistic behavior.

Of China implodes. Advantage of authoritarian regime: Your leaders think in terms longer than democracies; Shortside: You are liable to implode if enough things go wrong at the same time

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Not only is there a risk of China imploding, but there's a risk of geopolitical power in general losing zero-sum status if the climate and energy crisis gets bad enough. Too much collapse and that power bleeds out into the void instead of being claimed by other nations.

[smjjames]

Well this is what happens when the leader of the US doesn't even know what geopolitics are let alone complex theories of international relations.

International relations is pretty simple tbh

Not simple enough for Trump evidently.

[RedKing]

Yeah, China has tons of reasons domestically it could implode. Far more likely than external factors, tbh.
I gather that's why Xi is reasserting the control of the Party in Chinese society and trying to rein in the capitalism, because like every Chinese autocrat since Qin Shi Huangdi, his paramount concern is the preservation of order.

[smjjames]

Well, China is particularily vulnerable to food shortages due to population size, so, external factors like food supply instability due to climate change could exacerbate the domestic side.

[Reelya]

However that's mitigated by the sheer size of China and the fact that it spreads across so many climactic zones. e.g. total avaiable farm land is a big factor:

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Agriculture/Agricultural-land/Sq.-km

In terms of cultivated plus arable land, China is the clear winner with 5.19 million sq. km available. The entire European Union only has 1.88 million sq. km capacity. So China isn't really supporting a higher amount of people per cultivated hectare than the EU is.

Just the amount of land that's producing food in China is larger than the entire EU itself. People don't really get a sense of how huge a place it really is, they only focus on the idea that it's "one country" with lots of people. e.g. they think of it as if Germany or somewhere had 1 billion people in it. It's not the same. China's land area is almost 2.5 times that of the entire EU. That's the thing, everyone talks about e.g. USA, Canada, Russia as being "big" nations with a lot of land. Nobody says that about China, despite it being larger than the entire USA, even including Alaska.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Agriculture/Cereal-yield/Kg-per-hectare
And if you look at the stats here, China is trying to squeeze less production out per cultivated hectare than the UK, Germany, France, Belgium, Holland etc. So they have more leeway to ramp that up in case they lose some land. I'd say Europe has more to worry about. Right now Europe relies on imports to make up their diet, but if food security drops they might find they can't afford to do that any more.

[Loud Whispers]

>nobody says China is big
What the actual fuck

[Reelya]

i've met a lot of people who didn't believe China is a large country. Less people who seem to realize it's large.

but then again, I live in a large country. So perhaps people in the UK are aware of the scale difference. I'm willing to be a lot of Americans don't think it's as big as it is.

Old maps that make Greenland look about the same size as Africa don't help, obviously:



I mean, on this map it makes just Alaska by itself look almost as big as China, Australia or Brazil, when in fact Alaska is only about 20% the size of those places.

[Loud Whispers]

i've met a lot of people who didn't believe China is a large country. Less people who seem to realize it's large.

o_O
I've never even thought to ask people how big they think China is yet now I hesitate

but then again, I live in a large country. So perhaps people in the UK are aware of the scale difference. I'm willing to be a lot of Americans don't think it's as big as it is.

I reckon UK might be helped cos they know Australia is fuckhueg despite how the maps downplay its size, and of those, a good number'll know China is substantially larger than Australia

Suppose this problem could be solved by giving kids globes/forcing them to play grand strategy games until they git gud

*EDIT
But yeah I get what you mean. Even the UK is full of people who are very apathetic of countries like China and Japan despite how powerful they are. I've met very well-educated people who should know better who think Japan is irrelevant and remark that it's funny how no one knows what the name of the Chinese Premier is, it's a little depressing tbh