Your understanding of a China conflict is a characature of the actual argument from China hawks. If we allow Taiwan, a democracy, to fall then why would Japan and Korea stick with us? They won't, and neither will the rest of SE Asia.
This isn't about the Taiwanese people or semiconductors, it's about a plurality of global trade coming under the thrall of Beijing. Yes, this would be bad! Look at how China uses it's coast guard to prevent other nations from utilizing their own EEZ.
Edit: you are also vastly underestimating the casualties from a Chinese invasion. It will not be like African sectarian violence, it will be more like 9/11 i.e. buildings full of people blowing up, high def video of it all, real riveting stuff for western audiences. Chinese firepower makes Russian attacks on Ukraine look like child's play. A missile barrage on NYC should be your comparison, not Kiev or Congo civil war with machetes.
"Your understanding of a China conflict is a characature of the actual argument from China hawks. If we allow Taiwan, a democracy, to fall then why would Japan and Korea stick with us? They won't, and neither will the rest of SE Asia.
This isn't about the Taiwanese people or semiconductors, it's about a plurality of global trade coming under the thrall of Beijing. Yes, this would be bad! Look at how China uses its coast guard to prevent other nations from utilizing their own EEZ."
This is exactly the kind of vague, non-specific claims I was talking about when I wrote: "The problem with that argument is that we aren’t told exactly what China would do that would be so terrible for the West once it has taken over Taiwan and how it would do it."
What does it even mean *precisely* that Japan, Korea and the rest of South-East Asia "won't stick with the US"? And what does it mean that a plurality of global trade would come "under the thrall of Beijing"? And how *precisely* would that happen?
As I say in the post, this wasn't even meant to be a thorough refutation of the hawkish position toward China, but the problem is that it's not that easy to write such a refutation when people on the other side don't answer those questions and only ever make vague, non-specific claims about the terrible things that would happen if China became a "regional hegemon", another vague concept incidentally.
On your last point, I don't think it's me who underestimates the casualties that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would result in, I think it's you who underestimate the casualties that conflicts nobody cares about have made. I agree that it would have a very different impact in the West though, because it would get more media attention, but that's a different issue and indeed is directly related to my point.
"...this wasn't even meant to be a thorough refutation of the hawkish position toward China, but the problem is that it's not that easy to write such a refutation when people on the other side don't answer those questions and only ever make vague, non-specific claims about the terrible things that would happen if China became a "regional hegemon", another vague concept incidentally."
I think you make a completely valid point here; it's often taken for granted that a Chinese sphere of influence in East Asia would be bad for the US without much further discussion. However, I'd point out that the burden of proof (so to speak) that you're placing on the China hawks is awfully high. The fact of the matter is that it's very difficult, even for subject matter experts, to accurately predict how China might project influence into other parts of the world if it were to gain control over Taiwan and the First Island Chain. Obviously Korea, Japan, and the Philippines won't bandwagon or "fall to autocracy" right off the bat (domino theory seems to stick around in DC no matter how thoroughly it's been discredited), but there are fair concerns about the leverage that China would gain.
What does a Chinese near-monopoly on semi-conductors mean for the global economy and American defense tech?
What do Sino-Indian relations look like if the American threat in Taiwan dissipates?
What does a Chinese blue-water navy capable of projecting into the Persian Gulf mean for the petrodollar?
I'm no economist or IR guru, so I can't begin to answer these questions (although, the economists and IR geniuses would probably struggle to offer more than their best guesses). These are all vague, non-specific concerns, as you say, which make them impossible to refute.
This is precisely the problem. A shakeup in the power balance of East Asia poses a significant degree of *uncertainty*. The more intelligent among the China hawks prefer the *certainty* of a containment policy, even if it comes at the cost of a fierce security competition. Why? Because we can afford it, and because we don't really know what the consequences of the alternative would be down the line.
Just playing devil's advocate here. Really enjoyed the piece overall, bravo. I've been meaning to share my thoughts more comprehensively when I get a chance.
"...most authoritarian governments are not more respectful of human rights and can’t boast of the same track-record, yet as long as they’re geopolitically aligned with the West it doesn’t seem to bother China haters very much."
Exhibit A is Vietnam. Its system of government is basically the same as China's, but because it's neutral and geopolitically inconsequential, Western observers tend to speak of it in glowing terms and routinely offer it up as a destination to which supply chains should be redirected away from China. They've even deluded themselves into thinking it is or will be a US ally against China.
Vietnam doesnt occupy countries like Tibet. It doesnt go after its critics (Chinese nationals) in Western countries like China does. Just 2 differences. What China does to Tibet would be called settler colonialism if it was Israel
This isn't true. Look up Vietnamese settler colonialism in the central highlands. During the war South Vietnamese cities became over congested, so the Communist Party decided to start resettling the southern urban population into the central highlands to displace the Montagnard peoples who were anti-communist. See here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41056853
Vietnam also deisgnates the Viet Tan (a pro-democratization organization founded by diaspora Vietnamese) a terrorist organization
Fair. Ill admit Vietnam is a bit of a black spot for me historically, once they have beaten US. Id still venture to guess that they didnt move 1million plus people into a region which they only controlled for a short period of time over past 1000 years to change the national complexion and force structural change
Gotchu. Nonetheless, Vietnam did in fact do so, as the south was historically non-Viet. The north and south were only integrated into a single kingdom at the start of the 19th century under Emperor Gia Long (whose name means north south). Before that it was Cham and Khmer, and many Cambodians continue to feel resentment over the lost territory especially since the French fixed the border along those lines. Even afterwards, the central highlands were home to various ethnic groups, which were aligned with the French and later with Saigon. Hanoi started moving people to those regions en masse after the Second Indochina War to change the demographics and make governance more secure. There was a deadly attack on Vietnamese police in Dak Lak province a few years ago by separatists, as many remain hostile with the VCP
“…it’s hardly the worst country in the world and it can’t do that much to harm people in the West…”
If I could point you to a recent global event in which the authoritarian and secretive nature of the Chinese regime caused the deaths of several million westerners and produced massive economic and social dislocation in western countries, would you change your mind?
Sure, the Chinese government deserves a significant portion of the blame for how COVID was handled. But honestly, given the performance of our own federal government during COVID, do you think we would have handled it significantly better? I'm not entirely sure. There's no happy ending to an epidemic, whether you're authoritarian and secretive or not.
Your argument about Taiwan is that if the U.S. got out of the way, China could easily roll it over and if Taiwan was smart, it would just capitulate and it wouldn't be so bad. But maybe Taiwan wouldn't be smart. Maybe the Taiwanese would decide to launch suicide attacks against Chinese civilians and build an elaborate network of tunnels under Taipei (since you think this is understandable behaviour from Palestinians, presumably it would be understandable here too). Maybe Japan would sponsor an insurgency etc. So far, American policy has been demonstrably successful in stopping an invasion, and the wide variety of potentially very bad outcomes that might result, and it seems like the smart thing to do to keep doing that, which means credible threats of war in the event of an invasion.
I also think you neglect the racial angle. Chinese people are lower in empathy. At the individual level it's not that big, but it aggregates into major differences. Hence all the incomprehensible images you can find on Google of Chinese restaurants serving fetuses in soup and what not. In a basic sense, westerners don't really understand how people can have a European+ IQ and African levels of compassion. The Chinese political system is irrelevant, except in as much as it reflects these underlying racial differences. In some ways, maybe a world with China as a global power might be better. I suspect the problem of African over-population might just go away for example, but it's not abnormal to be wary.
We are all Homo sapiens, and as such, we tend to behave in similar ways when faced with comparable challenges. If there is a problem of terrorism in Gaza, it is important to ask what is being done wrong.
I am a secular Turk, and Turkey also faces a terrorism problem. The PKK has carried out suicide car bombings that have killed dozens of civilians at once. Despite this, the PKK has some level of support, as there will always be individuals who back such movements. However, the majority of Kurds in Turkey seek cultural rights and, in some cases, a degree of autonomy. Yet, most are not willing to die for this cause because they still have certain rights within Turkey. In 2015, the PKK attempted to instigate an uprising, but it failed because the Kurdish population did not support it. While many Kurds have grievances, their lives are not unbearable.
It is often said in Turkey that Kurds can achieve anything, and while this statement is sometimes dismissed as a cliché, there is truth to it. As long as they do not openly promote their Kurdish identity, they can ascend to high-ranking government positions and succeed in business. The same pattern is seen with Uyghurs in China. They face cultural oppression, but if they abandon their identity and assimilate, they can benefit from China's economic growth. This is also true for Ukrainians under Russian rule.
However, this is not true for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Consider the case of David Ben Avraham, a Palestinian who converted to Judaism, renounced his religion and identity, and fully accepted Jewish culture. Yet, this was not enough. He was denied Israeli citizenship and, ultimately, was killed by the IDF at the age of 63, despite being unarmed and following all orders, his hands raised in surrender. His fate illustrates the grim reality that, for some, complete disappearance is the only "acceptable" option.
This situation is reminiscent of French colonial rule in Algeria, where France refused to grant equal citizenship to Algerians, instead predicting that the indigenous population would vanish like Native Americans. The same rhetoric was used by the Nazis regarding Slavic populations in Eastern Europe. Early Zionists similarly argued that Arabs would resist, much like Native Americans, but would ultimately be forced to leave.
Why don’t Palestinian citizens of Israel carry out terrorist attacks or build tunnels under Tel Aviv? They are the same people as those in Gaza and the West Bank. The difference is that Israel does not treat them as it treated David Ben Avraham.
Returning to the initial question—would China treat Taiwanese people the way Israel treats Palestinians? The answer is no. There are already pro-Chinese political parties in Taiwan. If China were to invade, it would likely follow a strategy similar to that used in Hong Kong. At first, Taiwan might be given a "special administrative region" status, gradually assimilated into China over time. Pro-Chinese politicians would be placed in power, and dissent from pro-Western voices would be suppressed, with many opponents eventually leaving the country. As a result, no, there would not be tunnels and terrorist attacks. For that, a population must be treated in the way Israel treated David Ben Avraham.
You are confusing cause and effect, most likely because of consuming too much Turkish media. Between 1967 and the First Intifada, the occupied territories experienced rapid growth way in excess of the rest of the region because of open access to the Israeli market as vendors and labourers, as well as market-supporting legal norms imposed by Israeli military rule. This started to erode in the first intifada, eroded even further with the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, and fell apart completely after the second Intifada, and Sharon's erection of a comprehensive security network to stop it. All of the elements of the Israeli occupation that are supposed to be motivators of terrorism are, in fact, a response to terrorism. Before the Intifada, David Ben Avraham, or any other Palestinian Arab, could just get in a car and go to Tel Aviv whenever he wanted.
This is not to defend the Israeli occupation per se, because it was inevitable that the Palestinians would eventually do an Intifada, and Israel has never had any coherent strategy for stopping it. But what motivated it was not Israeli oppression because prior to the Intifada, Palestinians were much better and more liberally governed than any contemporary Arab country.
As to what Taiwan would do, it's unlikely they would emulate the Palestinians because (a) they have a 25 point IQ advantage on average and (b) they aren't Muslims, but there are a range of things they might do to resist occupation, and a range of foreign powers who might choose to support that.
There are a number of factors behind why the Kurds are relatively peaceable in Turkey. One is, as you say, that Kurds have the ability to work their way up in Turkey, and this peels off many high-agency potential rebels, but there are others too. Most notably, Kurds do not have regional powers who want to use them as a proxy army, and the PKK are mental communists who have little in common with the average Kurd.
Very interesting and I mostly agree, with a couple of exceptions.
1. I think that the following statement is simplistic: "I would prefer if the Chinese could also live in a democracy, but I also don’t think it’s my problem and, in any case, there is nothing I or even the West as a whole can do about it. If the Chinese want democracy, they will have to get it themselves." Precisely because the US remain the most powerful country on earth, their stance towards the Chinese regime can certainly contribute to future domestic developments in China - as it did in the past with the Soviet Union and, in particular, its satellites.
2. In my understanding, China hawks' desire to protect Taiwan is not so much about Taiwan itself - nobody even pretends - but about the signal sent to US allies concerning the solidity of US-led international alliances. Failing to protect Taiwan would, in this view, trigger fragmentation within the West, hence make China's expansion easier in the long-term, despite the fact that such expansion might very well not on the top of the Chinese wishlist at the moment.
Re 1, the engagement policy towards China that was in place until ~2016 was aimed at developing liberalism in China... look where it got us! Instead of a poor, backwards autocracy, we have a wealthy, developed autocracy.
Well, your comment precisely indicates that the engagement policy chosen by the US does produce consequences in China - even though they were the unintended one. Maybe the solution would be to push for autocratic rule ;-)
I'm 95% with you on this. I don't get why we are "in a conflict" with China. I don't get why their form of government affects me. I want to buy a cheap BYD car.
I'm fine with defending Taiwan. I don't see why China needs it. In a world of nuclear weapons, defense is cheap.
It's not like we need to engage in an arms race to prevent aggressive conquest. Ukraine didn't have nukes. The early Cold War didn't have enough of them for MAD. But if China stated invading countries today it would be trivial to stop it.
I do think the anti-China rhetoric is unnecessarily provocative. The only reason for China to invade Taiwan is if they truly believe we are committed to keeping them down and changing their government. So let's stop constantly saying that.
I think our system is superior to the Chinese because it leads to fewer catastrophic failures. All countries failed during COVID, but China failed hardest. Same thing with lots of items. Democracy isn't about implementing the will of the people. It's about being to throw the bums out peacefully when they are really fucking up and try something new.
But that is neither here nor there. As you note, their mistakes don't affect me. China didn't close my kids school, my school board did. I struggle to think of a single negative thing China has done to me. Sell me cheap goods? Buy my government bonds? The horror.
Good article, I agree with most of the points except about Chinese and western boundaries on what you can post online being equivalent (I won't argue fully as this is not my main point - but I don't view overly strict norms surrounding social etiquette, however strict or harmful they may be, as equivalent to government enforced censorship with the threat of jail backing it. Every society has the former in some way, and these can change organically).
The only thing I'd add is that from a perspective of international norms, a takeover of Taiwan is much less harmful vs China invading somewhere like Vietnam or the Ukraine situation. The status of Taiwan is very ambiguous, and there is a long history of states invading and enforcing sovereingty on parts of the periphery they view as being illegitimate/brakeaway states. I think you can let Taiwan go without weakening that much the idea that the US will punish brazen encroachments of one sovereign state on another, particularly an ally or a country close to China like Vietnam.
This is all mad. Taiwan is much more of a separate country from China than Ukraine is from Russia. The only real argument the US would have is that it would punish violations by countries other than China.
I'm with you on this. Ukraine didn't exist until 1991 and its borders were basically arbitrary. It was a divided (west vs east) and failed state that had some kind of (maybe) foreign backed coup in 2014. It's not hard to construct a narrative where splitting it in half is morally and practically just fine.
Taiwan is an independent and successful country with clearly defined borders for 75 years. It also renounced its claims to the mainland long ago. The moral and practical case for defending Taiwan is far greater.
Assuming you're making a cultural/identity argument here (one I would find quite suspect but that's besides the point), that's irrelevant to the point I was making which is more one revolving around international status/legality. From this point of view (a much more relevant one for US policymakers), your claim is obviously not true, and one scenario poses much greater risks. No one, not even the Russian government, claims that Ukraine is entirely a part of Russia (and did not at all claim Ukrainian territory until months into the war). On the other hand, no one, not even the Taiwanese government claims that it is itself an independent state.
The chance of setting a precedent that it's OK to invade sovereign states, particularly allies, is much stronger in the case of allowing what everyone recognises is an independent state to be invaded and dismembered (without even the initial casus belli of disputed land). In the case of a breakaway territory that no one recognises as an independent state (not even its own government) and that the aggressor has an undeniable legal claim to, there's a much more reasonable case under international norms and laws that is a legitimate action, and you send less of a signal that you condone land grabs from rogue actors. It's a different order of action.
I am saying that these jesuitical arguments have no relations to the real world. If the US won't intervene over Taiwan, a prosperous country of 23 million people, which has existed since 1949, and which is a strong US ally (despite US insults since Nixon went to China), then it won't intervene for anyone.
Now, in reality, that's not true because what it really means is that it wouldn't intervene for anyone against *China*, but that has nothing to do with your argument.
It's not silly at all. International law, whilst parts of it are obviously ignored when inconvenient, does in actuality bound how states act, even if imperfectly. Why do states not interfere in shipping for example, at least try not to be seen committing war crimes, and generally do not invade their neighbours? It's because of a system of international law backed by the economic and military power of the US and its allies. You might view international law as silly or contemptible, but it is important in bounding the actions of states, and allowing the invasion of Taiwan undermines this system much less than Russia's actions in Ukraine.
People need to get used to, and therefore unoffended by, major advances coming from China. It's 1.4 billion Euro IQ-like people. What could anyone think else would happen?
On the other hand, Chinese propagandists and general Chinese diplomacy, is the worst in the world that you're likely to come across. Just totally absurd lies and contradictions and obviously extremely well-funded. "The US is living in 2020, China is living in 2050..." kinds of just bizarre and halfway to North Korea levels of rewriting present day reality.
It also attracts all of the worst people, even if sometimes I sympathise with their politics, so if you're not Chinese and you're an obvious propagandist or amateur stan for the country, 90% chance you have an stridently defective personality.
1. China isn't a threat -- what are you, a conspiracy theorist? They could never in a million years do anything. How does China even affect you, personally?
2. Hey, American loser: America is dying, China is ascendant. But why are you worried about that? Why are you obsessed with China?
3. You shouldn't bother trying to stop China. China already won. China is a superpower and can produce 200x more ships than us, so it's already over. Just give up now and accept it. There's no reason to oppose China, because victory against China is impossible. They are supreme.
4. China is actually more brutally honest about race and gender than the west, and we could learn from that.
5. So what if China controls Russia and funds its war in Ukraine? It's not like Russia can influence European politics.
6. So what if Russia has traditional allies in politicians like Sarkozy and Merkel? It's not like they have much of an impact. Besides, Russian influence isn't the same as Chinese influence.
7. So what if China influences European elections? America does the same, so it's hypocritical to criticize.
8. So what if Chinese troops fight in Ukraine? Not my problem.
9. So what if Chinese tanks occupy Kiev? The Europeans were woke, and they deserve what's coming to them. Serves them right for letting in immigrants.
10. So what if NATO and the EU dissolve due to the rise of far right parties? That's called national sovereignty. You aren't woke, are you?
11. So what if China and Russia control Europe? We've got the Atlantic Ocean.
"remember how the original claim was that I should be concerned by China’s plan to subjugate Taiwan on the ground that it would have terrible consequences for the West?"
Because it signals that the US doesn't stick to its allies, as Jan Mazza describes.
Good points, thanks Philippe. I think the main justifiable fear is the almost gravity-like law that powerful people always seek more power. In democracies, power is divided so wannabe dictators must first keep busy getting more power in-country, like Trump/Musk are now. In achieved dictatures, the dictator has gotten all the power there is to get in-country, so the only way to get more powerful is to invade other countries. This wouldn't be a bad description of how the U.S. tried to grab Irak's oil, BTW, Bush had so much power from 9/11 that he tried to project out. I'd be surprised if Xi doesn't try something similar before getting too old, hopefully I'm wrong, the fact that he's taking his time could mean I'm wrong but could also mean he'll be more prepared and far more successful than Bush or Putin. If this comes at the same time as the U.S. empire collapses, you may be wrong to feel so safe and indifferent to the plight of Asians, no matter how far you live from there.
Many Americans consider it a horrible mistake that Chinese manufacturers took over American jobs. China should have never been admitted to join the WTO, they might add.
Apart from expecting China to keep its economy Communist forever, this attitude is callously indifferent to the extreme poverty that hundreds of millions of Chinese have now escaped.
Well what China does to Tibet would be called settler colonialism if it was Israel. It constantly steals IP, doesnt play by trade rules (our fault for not enforcing them), has started to build up bases outside its “sphere of influence” (Djibouti for example), dumps its products under price to the West which leads to destruction of our industries etc. should we go to war for it? Debatable. But people like Lemoine, sitting pretty in safe countries like France, arent the ones to talk. This is where you lose me. All of this is just going back to pre WW2 politics. Coming from a small country, i think majority of my countrymen would tell u to go fuck yourself. We saw what happens to us when “smart people” in big countries decide spheres of influence are a thing.
"the Sudanese civil war, which has already killed far more people than a Chinese invasion of Taiwan ever would?"
I used to wonder about the Sudanese civil war. However, after reading the /r/Sudan subreddit for a while, I think I figured out part of why people don't talk about it: The Sudanese are fiercely nationalistic and xenophobic (and Marxist?) They're extremely skeptical of the US/Europe/etc. and don't want foreign intervention.
Your understanding of a China conflict is a characature of the actual argument from China hawks. If we allow Taiwan, a democracy, to fall then why would Japan and Korea stick with us? They won't, and neither will the rest of SE Asia.
This isn't about the Taiwanese people or semiconductors, it's about a plurality of global trade coming under the thrall of Beijing. Yes, this would be bad! Look at how China uses it's coast guard to prevent other nations from utilizing their own EEZ.
Edit: you are also vastly underestimating the casualties from a Chinese invasion. It will not be like African sectarian violence, it will be more like 9/11 i.e. buildings full of people blowing up, high def video of it all, real riveting stuff for western audiences. Chinese firepower makes Russian attacks on Ukraine look like child's play. A missile barrage on NYC should be your comparison, not Kiev or Congo civil war with machetes.
"Your understanding of a China conflict is a characature of the actual argument from China hawks. If we allow Taiwan, a democracy, to fall then why would Japan and Korea stick with us? They won't, and neither will the rest of SE Asia.
This isn't about the Taiwanese people or semiconductors, it's about a plurality of global trade coming under the thrall of Beijing. Yes, this would be bad! Look at how China uses its coast guard to prevent other nations from utilizing their own EEZ."
This is exactly the kind of vague, non-specific claims I was talking about when I wrote: "The problem with that argument is that we aren’t told exactly what China would do that would be so terrible for the West once it has taken over Taiwan and how it would do it."
What does it even mean *precisely* that Japan, Korea and the rest of South-East Asia "won't stick with the US"? And what does it mean that a plurality of global trade would come "under the thrall of Beijing"? And how *precisely* would that happen?
As I say in the post, this wasn't even meant to be a thorough refutation of the hawkish position toward China, but the problem is that it's not that easy to write such a refutation when people on the other side don't answer those questions and only ever make vague, non-specific claims about the terrible things that would happen if China became a "regional hegemon", another vague concept incidentally.
On your last point, I don't think it's me who underestimates the casualties that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would result in, I think it's you who underestimate the casualties that conflicts nobody cares about have made. I agree that it would have a very different impact in the West though, because it would get more media attention, but that's a different issue and indeed is directly related to my point.
"...this wasn't even meant to be a thorough refutation of the hawkish position toward China, but the problem is that it's not that easy to write such a refutation when people on the other side don't answer those questions and only ever make vague, non-specific claims about the terrible things that would happen if China became a "regional hegemon", another vague concept incidentally."
I think you make a completely valid point here; it's often taken for granted that a Chinese sphere of influence in East Asia would be bad for the US without much further discussion. However, I'd point out that the burden of proof (so to speak) that you're placing on the China hawks is awfully high. The fact of the matter is that it's very difficult, even for subject matter experts, to accurately predict how China might project influence into other parts of the world if it were to gain control over Taiwan and the First Island Chain. Obviously Korea, Japan, and the Philippines won't bandwagon or "fall to autocracy" right off the bat (domino theory seems to stick around in DC no matter how thoroughly it's been discredited), but there are fair concerns about the leverage that China would gain.
What does a Chinese near-monopoly on semi-conductors mean for the global economy and American defense tech?
What do Sino-Indian relations look like if the American threat in Taiwan dissipates?
What does a Chinese blue-water navy capable of projecting into the Persian Gulf mean for the petrodollar?
I'm no economist or IR guru, so I can't begin to answer these questions (although, the economists and IR geniuses would probably struggle to offer more than their best guesses). These are all vague, non-specific concerns, as you say, which make them impossible to refute.
This is precisely the problem. A shakeup in the power balance of East Asia poses a significant degree of *uncertainty*. The more intelligent among the China hawks prefer the *certainty* of a containment policy, even if it comes at the cost of a fierce security competition. Why? Because we can afford it, and because we don't really know what the consequences of the alternative would be down the line.
Just playing devil's advocate here. Really enjoyed the piece overall, bravo. I've been meaning to share my thoughts more comprehensively when I get a chance.
"...most authoritarian governments are not more respectful of human rights and can’t boast of the same track-record, yet as long as they’re geopolitically aligned with the West it doesn’t seem to bother China haters very much."
Exhibit A is Vietnam. Its system of government is basically the same as China's, but because it's neutral and geopolitically inconsequential, Western observers tend to speak of it in glowing terms and routinely offer it up as a destination to which supply chains should be redirected away from China. They've even deluded themselves into thinking it is or will be a US ally against China.
Vietnam doesnt occupy countries like Tibet. It doesnt go after its critics (Chinese nationals) in Western countries like China does. Just 2 differences. What China does to Tibet would be called settler colonialism if it was Israel
This isn't true. Look up Vietnamese settler colonialism in the central highlands. During the war South Vietnamese cities became over congested, so the Communist Party decided to start resettling the southern urban population into the central highlands to displace the Montagnard peoples who were anti-communist. See here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41056853
Vietnam also deisgnates the Viet Tan (a pro-democratization organization founded by diaspora Vietnamese) a terrorist organization
Fair. Ill admit Vietnam is a bit of a black spot for me historically, once they have beaten US. Id still venture to guess that they didnt move 1million plus people into a region which they only controlled for a short period of time over past 1000 years to change the national complexion and force structural change
Gotchu. Nonetheless, Vietnam did in fact do so, as the south was historically non-Viet. The north and south were only integrated into a single kingdom at the start of the 19th century under Emperor Gia Long (whose name means north south). Before that it was Cham and Khmer, and many Cambodians continue to feel resentment over the lost territory especially since the French fixed the border along those lines. Even afterwards, the central highlands were home to various ethnic groups, which were aligned with the French and later with Saigon. Hanoi started moving people to those regions en masse after the Second Indochina War to change the demographics and make governance more secure. There was a deadly attack on Vietnamese police in Dak Lak province a few years ago by separatists, as many remain hostile with the VCP
“…it’s hardly the worst country in the world and it can’t do that much to harm people in the West…”
If I could point you to a recent global event in which the authoritarian and secretive nature of the Chinese regime caused the deaths of several million westerners and produced massive economic and social dislocation in western countries, would you change your mind?
I’m not talking about how it was handled, but about how it started.
Sure, the Chinese government deserves a significant portion of the blame for how COVID was handled. But honestly, given the performance of our own federal government during COVID, do you think we would have handled it significantly better? I'm not entirely sure. There's no happy ending to an epidemic, whether you're authoritarian and secretive or not.
Your argument about Taiwan is that if the U.S. got out of the way, China could easily roll it over and if Taiwan was smart, it would just capitulate and it wouldn't be so bad. But maybe Taiwan wouldn't be smart. Maybe the Taiwanese would decide to launch suicide attacks against Chinese civilians and build an elaborate network of tunnels under Taipei (since you think this is understandable behaviour from Palestinians, presumably it would be understandable here too). Maybe Japan would sponsor an insurgency etc. So far, American policy has been demonstrably successful in stopping an invasion, and the wide variety of potentially very bad outcomes that might result, and it seems like the smart thing to do to keep doing that, which means credible threats of war in the event of an invasion.
I also think you neglect the racial angle. Chinese people are lower in empathy. At the individual level it's not that big, but it aggregates into major differences. Hence all the incomprehensible images you can find on Google of Chinese restaurants serving fetuses in soup and what not. In a basic sense, westerners don't really understand how people can have a European+ IQ and African levels of compassion. The Chinese political system is irrelevant, except in as much as it reflects these underlying racial differences. In some ways, maybe a world with China as a global power might be better. I suspect the problem of African over-population might just go away for example, but it's not abnormal to be wary.
We are all Homo sapiens, and as such, we tend to behave in similar ways when faced with comparable challenges. If there is a problem of terrorism in Gaza, it is important to ask what is being done wrong.
I am a secular Turk, and Turkey also faces a terrorism problem. The PKK has carried out suicide car bombings that have killed dozens of civilians at once. Despite this, the PKK has some level of support, as there will always be individuals who back such movements. However, the majority of Kurds in Turkey seek cultural rights and, in some cases, a degree of autonomy. Yet, most are not willing to die for this cause because they still have certain rights within Turkey. In 2015, the PKK attempted to instigate an uprising, but it failed because the Kurdish population did not support it. While many Kurds have grievances, their lives are not unbearable.
It is often said in Turkey that Kurds can achieve anything, and while this statement is sometimes dismissed as a cliché, there is truth to it. As long as they do not openly promote their Kurdish identity, they can ascend to high-ranking government positions and succeed in business. The same pattern is seen with Uyghurs in China. They face cultural oppression, but if they abandon their identity and assimilate, they can benefit from China's economic growth. This is also true for Ukrainians under Russian rule.
However, this is not true for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Consider the case of David Ben Avraham, a Palestinian who converted to Judaism, renounced his religion and identity, and fully accepted Jewish culture. Yet, this was not enough. He was denied Israeli citizenship and, ultimately, was killed by the IDF at the age of 63, despite being unarmed and following all orders, his hands raised in surrender. His fate illustrates the grim reality that, for some, complete disappearance is the only "acceptable" option.
This situation is reminiscent of French colonial rule in Algeria, where France refused to grant equal citizenship to Algerians, instead predicting that the indigenous population would vanish like Native Americans. The same rhetoric was used by the Nazis regarding Slavic populations in Eastern Europe. Early Zionists similarly argued that Arabs would resist, much like Native Americans, but would ultimately be forced to leave.
Why don’t Palestinian citizens of Israel carry out terrorist attacks or build tunnels under Tel Aviv? They are the same people as those in Gaza and the West Bank. The difference is that Israel does not treat them as it treated David Ben Avraham.
Returning to the initial question—would China treat Taiwanese people the way Israel treats Palestinians? The answer is no. There are already pro-Chinese political parties in Taiwan. If China were to invade, it would likely follow a strategy similar to that used in Hong Kong. At first, Taiwan might be given a "special administrative region" status, gradually assimilated into China over time. Pro-Chinese politicians would be placed in power, and dissent from pro-Western voices would be suppressed, with many opponents eventually leaving the country. As a result, no, there would not be tunnels and terrorist attacks. For that, a population must be treated in the way Israel treated David Ben Avraham.
You are confusing cause and effect, most likely because of consuming too much Turkish media. Between 1967 and the First Intifada, the occupied territories experienced rapid growth way in excess of the rest of the region because of open access to the Israeli market as vendors and labourers, as well as market-supporting legal norms imposed by Israeli military rule. This started to erode in the first intifada, eroded even further with the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, and fell apart completely after the second Intifada, and Sharon's erection of a comprehensive security network to stop it. All of the elements of the Israeli occupation that are supposed to be motivators of terrorism are, in fact, a response to terrorism. Before the Intifada, David Ben Avraham, or any other Palestinian Arab, could just get in a car and go to Tel Aviv whenever he wanted.
This is not to defend the Israeli occupation per se, because it was inevitable that the Palestinians would eventually do an Intifada, and Israel has never had any coherent strategy for stopping it. But what motivated it was not Israeli oppression because prior to the Intifada, Palestinians were much better and more liberally governed than any contemporary Arab country.
As to what Taiwan would do, it's unlikely they would emulate the Palestinians because (a) they have a 25 point IQ advantage on average and (b) they aren't Muslims, but there are a range of things they might do to resist occupation, and a range of foreign powers who might choose to support that.
There are a number of factors behind why the Kurds are relatively peaceable in Turkey. One is, as you say, that Kurds have the ability to work their way up in Turkey, and this peels off many high-agency potential rebels, but there are others too. Most notably, Kurds do not have regional powers who want to use them as a proxy army, and the PKK are mental communists who have little in common with the average Kurd.
Very interesting and I mostly agree, with a couple of exceptions.
1. I think that the following statement is simplistic: "I would prefer if the Chinese could also live in a democracy, but I also don’t think it’s my problem and, in any case, there is nothing I or even the West as a whole can do about it. If the Chinese want democracy, they will have to get it themselves." Precisely because the US remain the most powerful country on earth, their stance towards the Chinese regime can certainly contribute to future domestic developments in China - as it did in the past with the Soviet Union and, in particular, its satellites.
2. In my understanding, China hawks' desire to protect Taiwan is not so much about Taiwan itself - nobody even pretends - but about the signal sent to US allies concerning the solidity of US-led international alliances. Failing to protect Taiwan would, in this view, trigger fragmentation within the West, hence make China's expansion easier in the long-term, despite the fact that such expansion might very well not on the top of the Chinese wishlist at the moment.
Re 1, the engagement policy towards China that was in place until ~2016 was aimed at developing liberalism in China... look where it got us! Instead of a poor, backwards autocracy, we have a wealthy, developed autocracy.
Well, your comment precisely indicates that the engagement policy chosen by the US does produce consequences in China - even though they were the unintended one. Maybe the solution would be to push for autocratic rule ;-)
You might be onto something. The US has the Midas Touch in reverse lol
I'm 95% with you on this. I don't get why we are "in a conflict" with China. I don't get why their form of government affects me. I want to buy a cheap BYD car.
I'm fine with defending Taiwan. I don't see why China needs it. In a world of nuclear weapons, defense is cheap.
It's not like we need to engage in an arms race to prevent aggressive conquest. Ukraine didn't have nukes. The early Cold War didn't have enough of them for MAD. But if China stated invading countries today it would be trivial to stop it.
I do think the anti-China rhetoric is unnecessarily provocative. The only reason for China to invade Taiwan is if they truly believe we are committed to keeping them down and changing their government. So let's stop constantly saying that.
I think our system is superior to the Chinese because it leads to fewer catastrophic failures. All countries failed during COVID, but China failed hardest. Same thing with lots of items. Democracy isn't about implementing the will of the people. It's about being to throw the bums out peacefully when they are really fucking up and try something new.
But that is neither here nor there. As you note, their mistakes don't affect me. China didn't close my kids school, my school board did. I struggle to think of a single negative thing China has done to me. Sell me cheap goods? Buy my government bonds? The horror.
Instead of all of this you could have just written China is not that bad and West is not that good. Huge time waster
Good article, I agree with most of the points except about Chinese and western boundaries on what you can post online being equivalent (I won't argue fully as this is not my main point - but I don't view overly strict norms surrounding social etiquette, however strict or harmful they may be, as equivalent to government enforced censorship with the threat of jail backing it. Every society has the former in some way, and these can change organically).
The only thing I'd add is that from a perspective of international norms, a takeover of Taiwan is much less harmful vs China invading somewhere like Vietnam or the Ukraine situation. The status of Taiwan is very ambiguous, and there is a long history of states invading and enforcing sovereingty on parts of the periphery they view as being illegitimate/brakeaway states. I think you can let Taiwan go without weakening that much the idea that the US will punish brazen encroachments of one sovereign state on another, particularly an ally or a country close to China like Vietnam.
This is all mad. Taiwan is much more of a separate country from China than Ukraine is from Russia. The only real argument the US would have is that it would punish violations by countries other than China.
I'm with you on this. Ukraine didn't exist until 1991 and its borders were basically arbitrary. It was a divided (west vs east) and failed state that had some kind of (maybe) foreign backed coup in 2014. It's not hard to construct a narrative where splitting it in half is morally and practically just fine.
Taiwan is an independent and successful country with clearly defined borders for 75 years. It also renounced its claims to the mainland long ago. The moral and practical case for defending Taiwan is far greater.
Assuming you're making a cultural/identity argument here (one I would find quite suspect but that's besides the point), that's irrelevant to the point I was making which is more one revolving around international status/legality. From this point of view (a much more relevant one for US policymakers), your claim is obviously not true, and one scenario poses much greater risks. No one, not even the Russian government, claims that Ukraine is entirely a part of Russia (and did not at all claim Ukrainian territory until months into the war). On the other hand, no one, not even the Taiwanese government claims that it is itself an independent state.
The chance of setting a precedent that it's OK to invade sovereign states, particularly allies, is much stronger in the case of allowing what everyone recognises is an independent state to be invaded and dismembered (without even the initial casus belli of disputed land). In the case of a breakaway territory that no one recognises as an independent state (not even its own government) and that the aggressor has an undeniable legal claim to, there's a much more reasonable case under international norms and laws that is a legitimate action, and you send less of a signal that you condone land grabs from rogue actors. It's a different order of action.
I am saying that these jesuitical arguments have no relations to the real world. If the US won't intervene over Taiwan, a prosperous country of 23 million people, which has existed since 1949, and which is a strong US ally (despite US insults since Nixon went to China), then it won't intervene for anyone.
Now, in reality, that's not true because what it really means is that it wouldn't intervene for anyone against *China*, but that has nothing to do with your argument.
It's not silly at all. International law, whilst parts of it are obviously ignored when inconvenient, does in actuality bound how states act, even if imperfectly. Why do states not interfere in shipping for example, at least try not to be seen committing war crimes, and generally do not invade their neighbours? It's because of a system of international law backed by the economic and military power of the US and its allies. You might view international law as silly or contemptible, but it is important in bounding the actions of states, and allowing the invasion of Taiwan undermines this system much less than Russia's actions in Ukraine.
'Why do states not interfere in shipping for example?'
Because unless you are already Somalia, the costs outweigh the benefits
"at least try not to be seen committing war crimes"
Media.
"and generally do not invade their neighbours?"
Same as the first one.
People need to get used to, and therefore unoffended by, major advances coming from China. It's 1.4 billion Euro IQ-like people. What could anyone think else would happen?
On the other hand, Chinese propagandists and general Chinese diplomacy, is the worst in the world that you're likely to come across. Just totally absurd lies and contradictions and obviously extremely well-funded. "The US is living in 2020, China is living in 2050..." kinds of just bizarre and halfway to North Korea levels of rewriting present day reality.
It also attracts all of the worst people, even if sometimes I sympathise with their politics, so if you're not Chinese and you're an obvious propagandist or amateur stan for the country, 90% chance you have an stridently defective personality.
The 12 stages of Chinese propaganda:
1. China isn't a threat -- what are you, a conspiracy theorist? They could never in a million years do anything. How does China even affect you, personally?
2. Hey, American loser: America is dying, China is ascendant. But why are you worried about that? Why are you obsessed with China?
3. You shouldn't bother trying to stop China. China already won. China is a superpower and can produce 200x more ships than us, so it's already over. Just give up now and accept it. There's no reason to oppose China, because victory against China is impossible. They are supreme.
4. China is actually more brutally honest about race and gender than the west, and we could learn from that.
5. So what if China controls Russia and funds its war in Ukraine? It's not like Russia can influence European politics.
6. So what if Russia has traditional allies in politicians like Sarkozy and Merkel? It's not like they have much of an impact. Besides, Russian influence isn't the same as Chinese influence.
7. So what if China influences European elections? America does the same, so it's hypocritical to criticize.
8. So what if Chinese troops fight in Ukraine? Not my problem.
9. So what if Chinese tanks occupy Kiev? The Europeans were woke, and they deserve what's coming to them. Serves them right for letting in immigrants.
10. So what if NATO and the EU dissolve due to the rise of far right parties? That's called national sovereignty. You aren't woke, are you?
11. So what if China and Russia control Europe? We've got the Atlantic Ocean.
12. So what if...
"remember how the original claim was that I should be concerned by China’s plan to subjugate Taiwan on the ground that it would have terrible consequences for the West?"
Because it signals that the US doesn't stick to its allies, as Jan Mazza describes.
Just got round to reading this—brilliant essay.
Good points, thanks Philippe. I think the main justifiable fear is the almost gravity-like law that powerful people always seek more power. In democracies, power is divided so wannabe dictators must first keep busy getting more power in-country, like Trump/Musk are now. In achieved dictatures, the dictator has gotten all the power there is to get in-country, so the only way to get more powerful is to invade other countries. This wouldn't be a bad description of how the U.S. tried to grab Irak's oil, BTW, Bush had so much power from 9/11 that he tried to project out. I'd be surprised if Xi doesn't try something similar before getting too old, hopefully I'm wrong, the fact that he's taking his time could mean I'm wrong but could also mean he'll be more prepared and far more successful than Bush or Putin. If this comes at the same time as the U.S. empire collapses, you may be wrong to feel so safe and indifferent to the plight of Asians, no matter how far you live from there.
Many Americans consider it a horrible mistake that Chinese manufacturers took over American jobs. China should have never been admitted to join the WTO, they might add.
Apart from expecting China to keep its economy Communist forever, this attitude is callously indifferent to the extreme poverty that hundreds of millions of Chinese have now escaped.
Well what China does to Tibet would be called settler colonialism if it was Israel. It constantly steals IP, doesnt play by trade rules (our fault for not enforcing them), has started to build up bases outside its “sphere of influence” (Djibouti for example), dumps its products under price to the West which leads to destruction of our industries etc. should we go to war for it? Debatable. But people like Lemoine, sitting pretty in safe countries like France, arent the ones to talk. This is where you lose me. All of this is just going back to pre WW2 politics. Coming from a small country, i think majority of my countrymen would tell u to go fuck yourself. We saw what happens to us when “smart people” in big countries decide spheres of influence are a thing.
Good essay.
"the Sudanese civil war, which has already killed far more people than a Chinese invasion of Taiwan ever would?"
I used to wonder about the Sudanese civil war. However, after reading the /r/Sudan subreddit for a while, I think I figured out part of why people don't talk about it: The Sudanese are fiercely nationalistic and xenophobic (and Marxist?) They're extremely skeptical of the US/Europe/etc. and don't want foreign intervention.