It's OK to not love China

     Flame me if you want, but I will never add an "I love China, but" to any of my opinions

I have to get something off my chest. A dark confession, the opposite of what I feel is expected of me. You see, as much as I feel expected to say otherwise, I don't love China. 

When favorably discussing Taiwanese independence, sovereignty or identity, or saying anything negative about the CCP, it seems as though so many people feel the need to insert a little "I love China, but..." or "I deeply love the people and culture of China, however..." Sometimes this is a single sentence header; sometimes it stretches out to cover an entire paragraph detailing some positive experience or perspective on China as a country, to emphasize the differentiation of the nation and people from the government. 

Here are just a few random examples from a quick search:

That's all fine, if you truly "love China" no one should stop you from saying so, but I don't love China. 

I certainly understand this, however. I've even engaged in it. One doesn't want to imply dislike or hatred of a group of people, or aim derision at an entire nation in all its complexities. Of course, engaging in "Screw China!" rhetoric is fundamentally racist, when China is a vast, complex nation full of everyday people who don't deserve to be lumped in with their genocidal government. 

Nobody actively insists this is a necessary addition to what one really wants to say, but I see it so often and feel compelled to include it. The consequence is often being labeled a "China-hater" (China as in the country, not the government) or worse, of perpetuating anti-Asian hate. Of course, tankies, aggressive Han supremacist trolls and CCP shills (both paid and unpaid) will accuse pro-Taiwan advocates and CCP critics of all of this anyway, but it feels like a necessary preliminary step to defend oneself.

But here's the thing. 

I truly don't love China. 

I've felt unspoken pressure to preface pro-Taiwan advocacy or criticism of the brutal, genocidal, authoritarian CCP with exhortations that are simply not sincere. And there's a strong likelihood that I'll attract criticism for simply being honest about this. 

Let's be clear: I don't hate China, either. I certainly don't hate Chinese citizens.  It's ridiculous to hate a whole nation -- no place, especially not one so large, complex and diverse in cultures, languages and history, could possibly deserve an opinion so simplistic and dismissive.

As someone who has lived in China and returned several times since, I simply have no specific affection for the country. Although I can never know what it's like to be Chinese or be a PRC citizen, I've experienced some version of life in China, and not in the big east coast cities (I've visited those, but my actual life there was in Guizhou). That experience resulted in mixed feelings.

Chinese histories -- the many histories of the regions now considered China -- are fascinating. The many cultures of China are, too. I've fallen out of love with the Mandarin language, but am enthusiastic about learning Taiwanese. Clearly Sinitic languages are of great interest to me. There are plenty of astounding things to see in China. I've seen them and been astounded. To touch on more everyday matters, the food is great (usually -- it's not always prepared well, as in any country) and the people are generally pretty nice. Daily life, at least for an expat, was fairly safe when I lived there.

But you know what else I experienced in China? Horrendous misogyny, aimed not at me but at Chinese women I knew. Their stories aren't really mine to tell, but I am pretty sure this attitude isn't anecdotal. 

I may have felt safe enough on the streets, .but I didn't feel the same way expressing any kind of opinion. That included fairly anodyne ones like "I think Taiwanese should get to decide if they want to be part of the PRC", which isn't even close to the pro-independence diehard that I am today. In contrast to Taiwan where one can freely discuss 228 or the White Terror, I never mentioned Tiananmen Square, because I knew I couldn't. Mail sometimes arrived pre-opened. People occasionally told me controversial opinions, such as "I was at Tiananmen Square so I know how fucked up things are", "We're not allowed to fully practice Uyghur culture, they are our oppressors" and "I'd like to protest the government but they'd just kill us." 

I kept those confessions to myself while in China -- what other choice was there?

That's not even getting into how sick the pollution made me, multiple times, nor the trouble of accessing actual international news. 

There were so many reasons why I chose to leave at the end of my year in China, but stuck around in Taiwan. My first six months in Taiwan were rough, but I felt a budding affection for the country which only grew. In China, that feeling never came.

In fact, the part of China I liked most was East Turkestan (known to some as Xinjiang), where people don't like the CCP, aren't Chinese and don't seem to really want to be part of China. I feel nothing but grief for what has happened there since my visit so many years ago. 

I've lived in four countries in my life -- the United States, China, India and Taiwan. I feel affection for India despite its flaws, and actually do love Taiwan. I chose to settle here, after all. My feelings about the US are more positive than about China, but I wouldn't say I "love" it. I can't say why China was my least favorite place to live, or why it didn't capture my affection in the same way as other places I've intentionally moved to. India is hardly perfect, and Taiwan has its negatives. But China just didn't do it for me.

Life there wasn't all all awful. There was good and bad, and those bad experiences above were balanced somewhat by positive ones. I made friends, began learning Mandarin, ate some amazing food, saw some stupendous scenic, cultural and historic sites. Very few experiences are all bad. And that's how I feel about China: good and bad.  

Honestly, regardless of what I think about any given government, I feel fairly neutral towards most countries. At best, I've enjoyed traveling in them and learning about them, but I wouldn't describe my emotions towards them as "love". I went to Sri Lanka and enjoyed it immensely, but that's about it. I went to Myanmar and had many positive experiences, but I wouldn't say I felt "love". Our honeymoon was a bus trip from Panama to Guatemala. It was amazing, and each country fascinating in its own way. But do I "love" Nicaragua? I wouldn't say so. I do care about people, but feel no clear need to love a country absent some specific yet ineffable catalyst.

Countries are countries -- they all have their good and bad points, some have more good than bad, and most have intractable problems but also things to like. People are also just people: most are good, many are nice, a few are rotten. That's true anywhere in the world you go. Even general safety is linked not to how "good" people are, but more to economic factors. 

So why, exactly, should I "love" China? What does it matter that I lived there? What does it matter that I live in Taiwan now? And what does it matter that I'm pro-Taiwan? I still don't have to "love" China in order to criticize it, and I'm sick of feeling tacit pressure to say I do. 

It feels like pre-emptive self-defense, as though one needs to justify supporting for Taiwan, Tibet or East Turkestan. As though one needs  a caveat in order to oppose the Uyghur genocide, or criticize the CCP. But I neither want nor need to prove myself, to add an insincere caveat, to speak the truth about other countries like Taiwan, and other cultures like Tibetan and Uyghur.

The case for Taiwan, among others, is just and right all on its own. It's time to stop falling over ourselves to proclaim "love" for China just because CCP shills will twist support for these causes into "anti-Asian hate" or "you're racist against Chinese people!" when that's simply not the case. 

I do hate the CCP: they certainly have no business running a country given all they've done to harm China (and then claim credit when they stop or reverse just some of the harm they themselves inflicted). They should be shunted out of existence. Xi Jinping should face charges before an international court for crimes against humanity and spend the rest of his life not as the dictator of the world's most populous country, but alone in a deep dark hole. I cannot describe the degree to which I loathe that government. 

But there are many governments I don't care for. Many run countries I like quite a bit, or feel neutrally toward! I appreciate Indian democracy but acknowledge the flaws of the Indian government (certainly I'm no fan of the BJP). The US government has some obvious problems. Taiwan has an admirable democracy but the government sometimes makes me feel like bashing my head against a wall. At least they're democracies, though. The CCP -- brutal, non-democratic but ultimately not the only factor in my feelings about China -- is an entirely different thing. 

But you know what? Whatever. I don't love China. I don't love China! It feels so freeing to just be honest about that. Living there had its upsides and drawbacks, but in the end the drawbacks outweigh the upsides, and I have no regrets about choosing never to return. I do miss things like 酸辣米皮 -- Guizhou-style hot and sour flat noodles. It's a shame I will probably never again see places I actually did love, such as East Turkestan, the Miao areas around Kaili, and Hong Kong. But I don't think China is a safe destination for public supporters of Taiwan. Oh well. 

I support Taiwan and Taiwanese independence. Taiwan is a country. Taiwan has a unique history and culture, and most Taiwanese do not identify as Chinese. China has no business claiming Taiwan and is absolutely in the wrong for threatening a bloody, violent war. Period. They are the provocateurs -- the only provocateurs. Not Taiwan, not the United States. 

That same government will tell you that this stance is akin to hating China as a country, which is essentially the same as anti-Asian racism. That is a lie, and I reject it. 

The CCP should fall, though nobody but the people of China can make that happen. I want only good things for Chinese citizens, but don't know how to support them. I wish I did. 

All of that is true, and also, I don't love China. 

Nobody wants your half-assed gangland solutions to the Taiwan-China problem

I apologize for being away so long — honestly, I just needed a break and thus took one. I’ve had a heavy workload and have needed to care for my health.

Also, a bit of a content warning. I start with a vivid analogy that involves children and murder. If that’s something you don’t think you can handle, go ahead and skip this post. 

Imagine if a murderer had your baby but for whatever reason, couldn’t or wouldn’t kill the baby immediately. Maybe someone else is standing between them and their weapon. 

Suppose this baby murderer proposed a series of “compromises”, each more preposterous than the last, but every “compromise” involved them getting to kill your baby. 

For instance, “how about I kill your baby, but in 20 years instead of now, so you can prepare for your child being murdered?” 

Or “I’ll give you lots of money, a new driveway and a great job, if I get to kill your baby.”

“How about I start the process of killing your baby, but really slowly so you can get used to watching your baby die?”

“No? How about I come live in your house, take over your baby’s education and set their social schedule, and in exchange I will delay the decision of exactly how to murder your baby? However, the baby will indeed be murdered at some undefined point in the future.”

“Okay, okay, you can make decisions about your baby’s education unless I disagree with your choices, and I’ll occupy your living room and kitchen. You can keep a bedroom to yourself, and even decorate it as long as I approve of the decorations. At some point, we'll figure out how to murder your baby together. These discussions on the best course of baby murder will take place with me holding a gun to your head.”

Their friends and hired goons would come by to bully and gaslight you, trying to make you think these were all reasonable offers. People claiming to be your friends would sidle up and say “maybe you should hear him out, there are lots of ways you could still keep a lot of your life as it is if you just let him do a wee bit o’ baby murder!” You don't tell these bad "friends" off because you're hoping some of them might eventually come around to realizing baby murder is wrong.

Would you sit down to a long, stressful, traumatic negotiation with the baby murderer about under what conditions you’d allow him to murder your baby? 

Or would you tell him to piss off, and fight for your baby’s life?

Yes, I realize I am calling the Chinese government a bunch of baby murderers here, but to be honest, I think that’s both literally and figuratively true. 

What’s my point? 

Pretty much every “solution” proposed to the Taiwan-China conflict is some variation on this theme — trying to find ways to make murdering what Taiwan holds most dear (its sovereignty, liberal democracy, and extant albeit imperfect commitment to human rights and freedoms) somehow more palatable to Taiwan, while offering little or nothing in return. They always center what China wants and never seem to view the situation from Taiwan’s perspective. 

And all of them — every single time — are variations on the same two themes. Extortion, and One Country Two Systems. That is, baby murder and slow baby murder. Baby murder, but with more steps. 

None of them ever consider that maybe one of the parties involved simply doesn’t want the other to murder their baby.

Consider, for example, the utterly infuriating Chas Freeman take in The Economist: 

In contrast, a diplomat and lead translator for the Nixon delegation, Chas Freeman, argues that America frittered away opportunities created in 1972 for a peaceful accommodation between Taiwan and the mainland. He urges America to push Taiwan to negotiate a settlement now, to avoid a war, though he concedes that Chinese rulers would roll back some democratic freedoms in Taiwan. “The most likely course of events is tragic,” Mr Freeman says.

I'm not sure this is a recent point -- his general buffoonery dates back quite a ways -- but it was in something published recently, so let's use it as a jumping off point.

This amounts to nothing more than “nice country you got there, shame if something were to happen to it” — that is, extortion. 

In other words, here's what Chas is saying: yes, it’s true that China will at least maim your baby and might even murder it, but if you don’t let them, they could burn down your house! 

Once again, the idea is that Taiwan gives China its most valued treasure, and gets nothing it wants in return. It only avoids something bad, by agreeing to something worse.

“Give us your stuff in exchange for fewer beatings” is not diplomacy. It is extortion. “Let us murder your baby in exchange for not burning down your house” is inhumane.

Freeman and lot of people like him don’t seem to realize that the things Taiwan holds most dear — democracy, human rights (however imperfectly implemented), sovereignty — are exactly the things China wants from Taiwan, and exactly the things Taiwan can never bargain away. 

This approach has another flaw — it avoids just one bad thing: war, the most visible of bad things. Other things, the loss of which are arguably worse than war, don't seem to rate. Maybe people like Chas Freeman don't care because they'll never notice or feel the effects: after all, it won't be their baby missing from their house. Perhaps it's easier to bargain away the life of someone else's baby?

It assumes that losing one's democratic freedoms is preferable to a war, if the people losing those freedoms don't include you. I'm anti-war, but I don't quite agree with that (not that I get a say). War is the second most tragic outcome. Y'know, I'd do anything for peace, but I won't do that. 

I guess human rights don’t mean much to these people if it’s not their human rights on the line. Would most Americans fight for their human rights? I hope so, but a lot of people seem to think Taiwanese shouldn’t. Why?

In the end, none of these incredibly naive “solutions” that involve China getting what it wants but Taiwan not getting anything it wants are simply not solutions. They are gangland-style theft. "Discussion" at gunpoint. Negotiating with baby murderers. They are not diplomacy.

Similarly, the Twitter Dingus genus of solutions all seem to sound like variations on the exact thing Taiwan has already said it cannot accept: One Country Two Systems (1C2S). 

There’s “Taiwan runs its internal affairs for 100 years” — but see how well that worked out for Hong Kong. Is it really a good bet that China will be better in 100 years? And if Taiwan doesn’t want to be part of China now, why assume it will want to in a century? 

There’s “Taiwan can run its government and economy, China gets foreign policy, defense and education” — so Taiwan is stripped of any way to defend itself against China if it realizes it signed a bad deal, and China gets to implement patriotic pro-China education in Taiwan schools. There’s “some portion of Taiwan’s government can be elected, some appointed by China” — a power-sharing plan that worked out terribly in Hong Kong, allowing China to eventually allow “patriots only” to run in the few Hong Kong elections that remained, and then lie about the reasons for low voter turnout. 

In every one of these, China gains, Taiwan loses. 1C2S with details changed. Baby murder, but with more steps.

Every proposal ends with asking Taiwan to let China murder its baby. None of them start with Taiwan’s non-negotiable: the baby lives. None of them stop to ask whether it’s ethical to negotiate with baby murderers at all. 

I’m not exaggerating. I don’t think it’s hyperbole. People fight and die for these things. They matter.

That’s the other real problem: other than not starting a war, China doesn’t actually have anything to offer Taiwan, and cannot offer Taiwan the only thing that matters.

Let’s leave aside the graphic metaphor for a second. 

Taiwan honestly is doing just fine without China. That doesn’t mean Taiwan is a utopia, and surely if stronger economic cooperation with China without the constant threat of annexation were possible, there would be benefits. However, those benefits — in part or in sum — are not enough to negotiate away what is most dear. I'm not sure anything is, but certainly nothing China has on offer.

Many of these issues (e.g. trade) can be solved either through greater engagement with the rest of the world or negotiating with China on a country-to-country basis, just as every other country handles them.

Even with no benefits on offer, perhaps discussion would be possible if it met other criteria: a desire for unification on the part of Taiwan, and a commitment to peaceful discussion with a renunciation of the use of force by China. China, of course, would have to have a government one would actually want to work with: open, liberal, democratic. 

None of these conditions exist, and likely won’t in our lifetimes, if ever. There is no desire for unification in Taiwan, only a desire to avoid war. In the last election the pro-China guy had to say “over my dead body!” when asked about 1C2S. That guy lost -- even this couldn't save him from being seen as too friendly with the CCP.

You might wonder why, then, the old US solutions referenced “Chinese on both sides of the Strait” believing there is “one China” are still bandied about, why the name “Republic of China” still exists, or why Taiwanese, in some (poorly interpreted) polls, don’t say that they want independence. That’s a whole new post, but I’ll address the first. In the 1970s, the KMT dictatorship running Taiwan didn’t represent the people, and a lot has changed here in terms of democratization and identity. The old talk about what “both sides” believed simply no longer applies, because Taiwanese no longer believe it (if they ever did, which is hard to know as nobody asked them in 1972.)

China, of course, has not renounced the use of force. Perhaps they know they have no carrots, so they can only brandish a stick. 

And, of course, the Chinese government is horrible and you’d have to be literally out of your mind to want to be governed by a bunch of genocidaires. Entire generations have passed waiting for that to change. It may happen, but likely not. I certainly wouldn’t pen an agreement betting on it in a certain timeframe. Hong Kong (well, their former colonizers, when handing it over to their current colonizers) bet on that and lost. 

It’s been said a million times but I suppose it needs to be repeated: the core problem between Taiwan and China is that Taiwan does not want unification, and China does.

Every proposed solution seems to entail some form of unification, despite that being non-negotiable to Taiwan. China's desires always seem to be centered, Taiwan expected to accept marginalization, when the CCP are the baby murderers and Taiwan wants peace.

Instead of thinking of what a good solution would look like for Taiwan (hint: it would involve ironclad and perpetual sovereignty — basically, independence) and going from there, these wannabe diplomats take China’s baby murder proposal and try to figure out how to gaslight Taiwan into believing it’s a good deal. 

But Taiwan knows better, and knows the value of its sovereignty and democracy.

So stop trying to convince them to take China’s bad offers, when there’s nothing in it for them and they’re perfectly aware these offers don’t Taiwan’s best interests into consideration.

How about this? Everyone just go ahead and shut the fuck up with their inane “solutions” to the Taiwan-China problem until their chief concern is helping Taiwan defend the life of its baby, not figuring out how to accommodate those who want to murder it.

Xi's speech is a nothingburger, but watch out for the media

I wish the rest of the world would treat the wishes of Taiwan as seriously as they do Xi Jinping's blathering

So, yesterday Xi Jinping gave this big "Taiwan speech" that had been announced well in advance. As my husband pointed out, these speeches are hardly worth paying attention to unless you're seeking confirmation of what you already know, but they're always guaranteed to make headlines. 

What could he possibly say, however, that would be new? He wasn't going to say "the bombing of Taiwan will begin in one hour", nor was he going to say "actually I've decided this whole 'Taiwan' thing is silly and we're just going to let them live in peace". So the only possible roads this thing could take would be a.) moving closer to threatening use of force or b.) moving away from threatening use of force. That's it. 

And that's exactly what happened. It was the same old rhetoric: there must be "reunification", it can take place under "one country two systems" as it has with Hong Kong -- nevermind that Hong Kong is a massive failure that Taiwan should avoid emulating at all costs -- that this is an "internal matter", and that it would be best if it were done by "peaceful means". 

Reading between the lines, Xi is basically saying that they're going to keep up the status quo of shaking a stick at Taiwan and calling it a carrot (as though they think the Taiwanese are not smart enough to tell the difference), they'll keep buzzing Taiwan's ADIZ and they'll keep fuming at international support for Taiwan, but they're not likely to actually start a war right now. I suppose that counts as "good news" these days.

Xi knows that this is how it'll play out, because he's perfectly aware that Taiwanese aren't interested in any kind of unification. They want to avoid a war, and will go to great lengths to maintain peace -- including maintaining the fiction of a 'status quo', when the truth is that Taiwan is already independent -- but actually becoming part of China is off the table. Frankly, it always will be. Once a group of people who have governed themselves competently in a unified territory for a long time have decided they have an identity, a history and a set of more-or-less shared civic values, they are essentially a nation. That's not the sort of thing that regresses back towards submission to some other identity they simply do not hold, under a government they can never accept.

So, he can talk about 'peaceful' unification, but he knows it's not going to happen. This speech was basically an "ok, we won't bomb you...yet". In other words, it was nothing.

The media has emphasized Xi's use of the word "peaceful", but note that he did not exactly renounce the use of force so much as not call upon it. He didn't say China would never use force, but that they'd prefer not to. So, again -- nothing.

None of this is particularly interesting, but it does give me the opportunity to point out that the media is doing what the media always does: ascribe "tensions" to anything but China. Tensions can be raised by Taiwan, or they can pop out of thin air, but as far as the international media is concerned, they never originate from China. 

Here are a few clips. From the BBC:

Despite the recent heightened tensions, relations between China and Taiwan have not deteriorated to levels last seen in 1996 when China tried to disrupt presidential elections with missile tests and the US dispatched aircraft carriers to the region to dissuade them.

Where do the 'heightened tensions' come from, BBC? Tell us!

The BBC also offered us this gem:

Taiwan considers itself a sovereign state, while China views it as a breakaway province.

Please forgive your less-informed readers for not knowing who actually runs Taiwan after reading this, because you certainly both-sidesify this into abstract confusion. 

To be clear: Taiwanese already run Taiwan, they commonly call their country Taiwan (only the KMT beats the "Republic of China" drum and they're neither popular nor in power), they identify as Taiwanese and their government is sovereign. It doesn't consider itself a sovereign state. It is a sovereign state, and in pretending there's a "status quo" issue or something still "undetermined" about that is simply Taiwanese being super conciliatory because they don't want war. "Okay if it stops you from bombing us we'll pretend the issue is not already resolved on our end", when it actually has been for awhile now.

That's it.

From CNN:

The speech comes amid rising military tensions in the Taiwan Strait. Over four days in early October, the Chinese military flew almost 150 fighter jets, nuclear-capable bombers, anti-submarine aircraft and airborne early warning and control planes into Taiwan's Air Defense Identification Zone, according to the island's Defense Ministry.

"Amid rising military tensions"? Who is raising those tensions, CNN? You say it in the next sentence: the Chinese military. Chinese fighter jets. Chinese incursons. Why can't you just say that the tensions are caused by China?

CNN's take is actually worse than the BBC's:

 

Speaking in the Great Hall of the People to commemorate the 110th anniversary of the revolution that ended the country's last imperial dynasty, Xi said the biggest obstacle to the reunification of China was the "Taiwan independence" force.

Note that in the headline, "reunification" is at least in quotes (acceptable), but here it's presented as-is. Why? Taiwan and the PRC have never been unified. What's this "re-" business?

And who is this "'Taiwan independence' force"? Reading this, you'd think it was a small group of separatists when in fact it's the consensus view of most Taiwanese that they are not a part of China, they are not Chinese in the sense China demands, and they don't wish to be.

From The Guardian:

China’s president, Xi Jinping, has vowed to realise “reunification” with Taiwan by peaceful means, after a week of heightened tensions in the Taiwan strait.

Who is raising the tensions, The Guardian? China. Do your readers a service and just say so.

 

Tensions across the Taiwan strait have been running high in recent weeks. In the first four days of October, for example, China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) sent nearly 150 planes into Taiwan’s air defence identification (ADIZ) zone.

Once again, why do you not ascribe these tensions to China, before immediately describing a series of actions undertaken only by China? Please just call these tensions what they are.

Meanwhile, according to the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, about two dozen US special forces soldiers and an unspecified number of marines have been training Taiwanese forces, in the latest indication of the extent of US involvement in the tensions in the area.

 

From the Taiwanese side there are no tensions. Taiwan is preparing because China is creating tensions. The US is standing by an important strategic partner under threat from an unreliable, authoritarian, genocidal bully. So say that.

At least The Guardian includes a Taiwanese perspective at the very end, where Premier Su rightly notes that all of these tensions come from China:

Speaking shortly before Xi, Taiwan’s premier, Su Tseng-chang, noted that China had been “flexing its muscles” and causing regional tensions.

But it does feel like they sort of 'tacked on' an alternative viewpoint rather than noting that Su's statement is simply accurate.

Anyone who watches these issues knows that the tensions do, in fact, originate entirely with China. Taiwan wants peace, period. As a friend noted, it would be helpful if China could provide us with a Tension-o-Meter which could tell us the exact level of tensions at any given time, and that meter would be accurate as China is the one who determines the tension level.

It starts and ends with them. Taiwan has done all it can to maintain peace without abrogating its freedom or dignity. Although the international media has done a slightly better job of including the Taiwanese response, and (usually) putting "reunification" in quotes, I'm still waiting for them to report this accurately.

Here, as a little dessert, have some memes:

Every missile pointed at my house proves that Kishore Mahbubani is wrong.

I read Kishore Mahbubani's genocide denialist, anti-Taiwan garbage so you don't have to.

Before I start, I just want to note that the author of the piece that just defiled my eyes is also the author of a book titled -- and I am not shitting you -- Can Asians Think? 

My husband picked it up at a used bookstore and hated it (because, duh), and the guy before him had scribbled a single word on one of the pages: wanker.

I never finished it to find out if Asians could, indeed, think, because who needs a book to answer a question like that? However, I can now honestly say that while Asians can think, Singaporean wanker Kishore Mahbubani is not exactly the greatest example of this.

Anyway, let's get started.

I was planning to take a week or two off blogging because I've been so busy with online teacher training, but this article in the National Interest is just begging to have some feces flung at it, so here we are I guess. 

I've waded through the whole thing so if you care about Taiwan, East Turkestan, Hong Kong, Tibet or any part of Asia outside of China and also want to keep your blood pressure in check, you don't have to.

If President Joe Biden were to propose to China an economic deal that would benefit the American economy (and American workers) and also benefit China, China would enthusiastically embrace such a deal.

Probably, but Mahbubani implies it might actually a good idea to propose such a deal, with a country that is actively committing genocide and threatening America's strategic partners, like Taiwan. I would consider such a deal to be akin to agreeing to work with the Nazis.

Second, China is not a threat to American security. China isn’t threatening a military invasion of America (and its armed forces are an ocean away); or a nuclear strike on America (with its nuclear warheads being one-fifteenth the size of America’s). China is also not threatening American military supremacy in regions like the Middle East. Indeed, China isn’t even the enemy of American defense budgets.

It's interesting that he mentions the Middle East, but leaves out the Pacific. By actively threatening Taiwan, salami-slicing the South China Sea (pissing off Vietnam and the Philippines), fighting with India, claiming the Senkakus and eyeing the Ryukyus, supporting the Myanmar junta, China absolutely is shuffling closer to a move toward dominance in the Pacific and the rest of Asia. The US might not do much about Myanmar, but they do care about that island chain. Either Mahbubani doesn't realize this, or he does and is deliberately omitting it. 

If Haines is right in saying that China is a threat to America’s security, the logical conclusion would be that China would be happy to see a reduction in America’s defense budget, America’s aircraft carriers, jet fighters, naval bases. Actually, China would be unhappy. Chinese strategic planners are absolutely thrilled that America is wasting so much money fighting unnecessary wars as well as maintaining a huge and bloated defense budget that weakens America’s competitive edge in more critical areas, like education and research and development.

To be clear, I'm not a fan of the US's massive defense budget. Friends have said it's necessary to maintain sufficient military supremacy to, say, protect Taiwan. I'm not a military analyst, I don't know, but ideologically speaking I don't care for it. However, Mahbubani is wrong. 

Mostly China is happy the US fights unnecessary wars because they offer a convenient palette with which to paint the Taiwan situation, making it look like the US standing against a potential invasion would be just another "unnecessary war" that we'd be better off staying out of.

Finally, Haines says that China is a threat to American “values across a range of issues.” This statement would be true if China were either threatening to export its ideology to America or threatening to undermine the electoral process in America. Neither is happening.

Have you asked any Chinese, Uighur, Tibetan or Hong Konger in the US whose families in China have been threatened (which also happens in other countries) if they believe that's true? Any of those groups, or any Taiwanese who's had to fight to have their issues platformed on university campuses with Confucius Institutes? Have you asked any of the airlines who changed their designations of Taiwan/Taipei to "China" at China's behest? Because I bet you they'd say the attempt to import CCP values to the US is very obviously a thing. 

The first misconception is that since China is run by a communist party, it must, like the former Soviet Union, be on a campaign to prove that communism is superior to democracy....Yet Americans also believe in empirical evidence. That evidence shows that China has stopped supporting fellow communist parties for decades.

That's because China isn't communist (neither am I, so don't come at me). Of course the CCP, despite its name, doesn't care about exporting communism. It cares about exporting the values of acknowledging China's global supremacy. This is easier to do if a country is, in fact, a dictatorship, but that's not a prerequisite.

If you think they are not trying to export CCP values, however, you are wrong. It hasn't hit America yet, but it's happening elsewhere.

I'm not pissed at China because they're "trying to export communism". I doubt it would work if they were. I'm pissed at China because they have fucking missiles pointed at my fucking house.

China’s real mission is to rejuvenate Chinese civilization, not waste time exporting communist ideology. 

It's really interesting that he chose to use these words. It's the exact phrase -- "rejuvenate Chinese civilization" -- that the CCP tends to approve of in translation. Anyone paying half a bit of attention knows what "rejuvenate Chinese civilization" means: destroy Uighur and Tibetan culture. Force authoritarianism on Hong Kong. Invade and subjugate Taiwan. Basically, do a lot of shitty things to a lot of people who either do not want them, do not consider themselves Chinese, or both. Do you support this, Kishore? Really? The violent subjugation of millions? 真的？

Plus, rejuvenate from what? Their own fuck-ups from about 1945 on? Because the "century of humiliation" was a long time ago (despite how frequently the Chinese government brings it up). There's more to rejuvenate from thanks to the Great Leap Forward than the Opium Wars.

If they're indeed still trying to "rejuvenate" from the late 180os, or even the domestic postwar mess they themselves created, doesn't that indicate that the CCP has failed rather than succeeded?

The second misconception is that when China becomes the number one economic power in the world, replacing America, it will, like America, go on a universalizing mission and export the Chinese “model,” just as America exported the American “model.” Here’s a perfect example of America’s total ignorance of its adversary. The most basic fact that Americans should know about the Chinese people is that they do not believe that anybody can be a Chinese in the way that Americans believe that anybody can be an American. The Chinese believe, quite simply, that only Chinese can be Chinese. And they would be puzzled if anybody else tried to become Chinese.

Two things. First, one need not "be Chinese" to import "the Chinese model", this is a non-sequitur. They seem quite happy to support a similar model in Myanmar, without ever thinking the people crushed by the junta are Chinese. 

Second, while it's true that by and large "Chineseness" is not an identity one can just take on the way one can immigrate to America and be "American", the CCP does have an objective of assimilation. Tibetans and Uighurs aren't Chinese under the most commonly understood construct of "Chineseness", and I don't think either group considers itself Chinese, but the CCP sure does seem eager to crush and assimiliate them -- to the point of literal genocide. 

And they are quite eager to insist that anyone they say is Chinese...is. This extends to millions of citizens of foreign countries who are, say, Swedish or Australian. They'll even abduct them on foreign soil, as they did with Swedish citizen Gui Minhai in Thailand.

They double down on Taiwanese being Chinese, even though the vast majority Taiwanese don't identify that way. So it sure does look from my Taipei apartment that China does think that people who are not Chinese can be -- must be -- Chinese. 

Actually, if the truth be told, Beijing doesn’t give a fig whether a country is a democracy or autocracy. It only cares whether it can work effectively with a given country. 

It sure does seem to care that Taiwan remains a democracy, Kishore. And doesn't seem keen to work with it so much as subjugate it.

Hence, if the birthplace of Western democracy, Greece, decides to join the Belt and Road Initiative and welcome Chinese investment in its Port of Piraeus, China doesn’t care whether Greece is a democracy or not.

It's interesting that you mention Greece -- far away -- but ignore Taiwan. And CCP support of the junta in Myanmar. And although it's technically part of China, the desire for democracy among Hong Kongers. Are you unaware that China is deeply unpopular across Asia, among its own neighbors? 

You might call yourself a "friend of America" earlier in the piece, but you are no friend of Asia.

Step three would be to reverse all the steps that the Trump administration took in the trade war with China. Why reverse them? They didn’t weaken the Chinese economy. Indeed, they may have damaged America’s economy instead.

They probably did damage America's economy more than China's, but we don't actually know that because there's no such thing as wholly reliable data from China. Besides, why would you want to work with a country that commits genocide? (I realize the US does just that with other countries, and even aids them -- including aiding the pummeling of Yemen and the Israeli treatment of Palestine, but ideally it wouldn't do so anywhere.)

 

Step four would be to rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement which former President Barack Obama had wisely initiated to ensure that the East Asian economic ecosystem, the largest one in the world, would not be centered on China. Step five would be to match the Chinese punch-for-punch by signing free trade agreements with every country or region that China has signed with. For example, one important arena for U.S.-China competition will be Southeast Asia, where there are still major reservoirs of goodwill towards America among its 700 million people. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) matters. In 2000, Japan’s combined gross national product was eight times larger than ASEAN’s combined GDP. By 2019, it was only 1.6 times larger. By 2030, ASEAN’s economy will be bigger than Japan’s. Hence, America should immediately sign a free trade agreement with ASEAN.

I'm including this because it's the first paragraph in a long string of garbage that I actually sort of agree with.  I don't think "free trade" is necessarily a fix for everything, but neither do I demonize it (as I said, I'm not a communist). It would be smart for the US to strengthen ties with the parts of Asia that are not China, period. Whether free trade is the best vehicle for this is a spin-off discussion of that.

But, is it not super weird that he completely ignores Taiwan, the country that would benefit most from stronger ties with the US? 

This is, probably, the most important point that American strategic planners should reflect on: at the end of the day, the outcome of the geopolitical contest between America and China will not be determined by the number of aircraft carriers or nuclear weapons. Instead, it will be determined by which society is doing a better job at taking care of its bottom fifty percent. As of now, China is leading by a mile....

Um...is it though?

Instead of tripping over myself to talk about why I don't think this is true, here's a tweet from an economist I think has the right of this issue:

There are plenty of countries in the world that do a better job at taking care of the poor, the working class, and the middle class than America does.

China is not one of those countries.

— Noah Smith 🐇 (@Noahpinion) July 31, 2021

I'll also add that while poorly regulated capitalism put America's bottom fifty percent where they are, that Chinese state control of the economy (not quite communism -- state capitalism) is what dragged most of China into poverty, and far worse poverty at that. Should we give the CCP a medal for attempting -- badly -- to pull people out of poverty that they themselves put into poverty?

There are four parts to this critical piece of advice: a country that knows what it wants (1), coping successfully with its internal problems (2) and global responsibilities (3), and which has a spiritual vitality (4). Vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, America was ahead on all four counts. Today, vis-à-vis China, America is behind on all four counts.

Look, America doesn't have much of a moral high ground. It's been awhile since we committed all-out genocide on our own land, although we have done so. We've not exactly been a moral compass on genocides abroad, to put it lightly.

But how can you look at the genocide of the Uighurs and threats to subjugate Taiwan and support for the mass repression and death in Myanmar, and call that "spiritual vitality", "dealing successfully with internal problems" and "global responsibility"? 

The government actively encourages their own people to say it's fine to massacre all Taiwanese as long as they take the island. Does that sound spiritually vital or globally responsible to you? They solve "internal problems" through gulags. Does that sound like a good method?

If so, what the everloving fuck is wrong with you?

Yet, Biden would be crucified politically if he were to lift trade sanctions against China that have harmed American businesses and farmers. The Biden administration will need strong political cover if it wants to rebalance relations with China and strive to achieve a more normal relationship with China, devoid of self-defeating tariffs and sanctions.

Okay, but why would you want to rebalance relations with a country that commits literal genocide and is threatening to invade and subjugate another important strategic partner?

Kennan’s wise advice, stated above, also emphasized that America should be mindful of the impression that America creates “among the peoples of the world.”

Right. So we should stand against genocide and subjugation. Meaning we should not be kind to China. That would be a good impression to make. One I could get behind.

America can now use the same empirical test to see whether the “peoples of the world” support America over China. Unfortunately, unlike the Soviet Union, China has not invaded or occupied any neighboring state.

You think the use of present perfect saves you, Kishore, but it doesn't. Your use of "complex" to weasel your way out of any sort of moral accountability for your stance signals what we're about to read.

Also, the world doesn't quite favor China as much as you want to make it seem.

Regardless, I'd like to say hello from Taipei, where I am pissed at China because they are threatening to invade the country I call home, a neighboring state. They have missiles pointed at my house. They want to massacre my friends. Does Taiwan not exist to you? Is it too inconvenient for your argument? Apparently so:

Nonetheless, America has accused China of behaving “aggressively” in three territories: Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and Taiwan. The issues involved in each of the three are different. Indeed, they are complex. However, most American commentaries make a simple black and white case that China’s actions in these three territories are wrong and, as a result, the “world” disapproves of China’s actions in these areas.

First, Taiwan is not a territory of the PRC. So now we know where you stand -- you are a filthy subjugationist. You honestly think a military invasion of Taiwan would be acceptable?

Fuck you, Kishore. Just...fuck you. I don't have better words. 

Fuck you. 凸

Second, I'm writing this as I'm reading it, but I hope to any gods in heaven that he is not about to launch into a defense of the genocide of the Uighurs or subjugation of Hong Kong.

Let's find out together! 

Whenever any American uses the phrase which suggests the “world disapproves of China,” they should say privately to themselves this phrase: “1.5 billion Muslims, 1 billion Hindus, 1.4 billion Africans, 600 million Latin Americans, 500 million Buddhists (or the vast majority of the world’s population) disapproves of China’s actions. By using this phrase, instead of “the world,” they would see clearly that they have made an empirically false statement. Most countries in the world do not support American criticisms of China in either Hong Kong or Xinjiang. As indicated above, there is an empirically verifiable way for America to determine whether the “world” supports American criticism of China’s actions in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, or Taiwan. America could table a resolution on any of three issues in the UN General Assembly. If it were to do so, America would find itself in the same situation as the Soviet Union in the Cold War. It would struggle to get thirty to forty countries out of 193 countries to support its point of view.

First, oh my god, you actually are weinering your way out of denouncing actual literal genocide in Xinjiang, repression in Hong Kong and an invasion of Taiwan by both-sidesing the issue, as if these things are acceptable if most of the world is willing to turn a blind eye. Seriously, fuck you.

I thought you were saying that the US should  be mindful of the "impression" it creates.

Doesn't that logically mean it should create the impression that it won't stand for genocide just because other countries are willing to ignore it? I know we haven't got a solid track record here, but it's high time we changed that, rather than adding to our past misdeeds.

Besides, the governments of those countries in the UN aren't willing to stand against these horrors not because they're not morally wrong, but because of all that fat Chinese investment in their countries. It's equivocation to say that the world is turning to China for financial reasons, but then that China's actions are not necessarily morally wrong because the world won't vote in the UN to say they are, when that is precisely because of those financial incentives. They are not the same thing, and you know they're not.

As for the people, most people who don't care about these things either live very far away and are preoccupied with their own issues; this is human nature. Others are simply unaware. But let's not substitute the actions of governments represented in the UN for beliefs of people. They don't exactly map, and you know that. 

Plus, I can think of one country that is not in the UN that should be. I live there, and China has its fucking missiles pointed at my fucking house. But you seem to think it would be fine for China to massacre this country's citizens the way it massacres its own. 

In theory, if China was suppressing its Muslims, the most outraged community would be the fifty-seven countries that are members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

So you really are engaging in genocide denial. Great. You're also a filthy genocide denier. There is something so absolutely slimy and disgusting about implying a genocide doesn't exist if an insufficient number of people oppose it.

I note that Mahbubani doesn't go into any of the actual evidence that there is indeed a genocide. Of course he doesn't, that would destroy his argument that China is a normal nation just trying to help its people, not engaging in crimes against humanity. Rather, he dismisses it as probably not real because the world isn't doing enough to stop it. 

That is not an argument. If you think it is, go back to school.

Besides, I don't think you have to be Muslim to stand against the genocide of Muslims.

Yet not one Muslim country supported America or the West on Xinjiang. In response to the statement by the twenty-three countries condemning China, fifty-four countries backed a counter-statement defending China’s actions in Xinjiang.

Did we not just discuss China throwing fat stacks around the world? The Muslim world has been a big beneficiary of all this cash (well, the wealthiest have been, the debt traps tend to screw everyone else), but that just makes China as bad as the US on ethical foreign policy. It doesn't mean that the genocide isn't real. Just because the rest of Africa didn't do anything about the genocide in Rwanda in the '90s doesn't mean it didn't happen. Please stop conflating money and morals, and please stop pretending that genocide can be ethically acceptable if enough people are willing to turn a blind eye to it.

Let me show you what this argument actually is: until 1941 the US was -- or claimed to be -- uninterested in getting involved in the war in Europe. Newspapers in the 1930s had praised or defended Hitler for quite some time before that. By Mahbubani's logic, the Holocaust was therefore morally acceptable until the very moment the world decided it was not, and in fact it could be argued was not happening until the world realized it was. You could argue that the Armenian genocide didn't happen because nobody did much to stop it. Come on. Even infants have more object permanence than this absolute trashfire of a case. 

The real issue here is not the merits of the case on Xinjiang, Hong Kong, or Taiwan. The real issue is the stark difference between America’s standing in the world vis-à-vis its primary competitor in the Cold War, namely the Soviet Union, and its standing in the world vis-à-vis China. 

Why do I suspect you're only saying that because you know that on the merits of these issues, you lose?

Most countries want to have good relations with America. Yet most countries also want to have good relations with China. Hence, if any American administration, driven by domestic political pressures, steps up its geopolitical contest with China, it will find itself relatively isolated internationally. Few countries would enthusiastically support America in this contest.

Trying to keep yourself at an academic remove from essentially greenlighting genocide and the invasion and subjugation of a democracy is not a good look, Kishore. 

It's becoming clearer, in fact, that more countries are seeing the ethical impossibility of dealing with the CCP. From the investment deal with Europe tanking to Japanese officials finally saying that Taiwan mattered to them, to everyone else who stands to lose if Taiwan falls, I actually do think the US could find allies in this if the situation became desperate. 

And who would make it that desperate? China.

Bet you won't say that, though. 

The European countries, especially France and Germany, are among America’s closest allies. Yet they too will be ambivalent about joining any American crusade against China, even though they share some American concerns about China’s behavior.

There's truth in that, but you keep trying to tie it to some argument that therefore we shouldn't do anything for Taiwan, Hong Kong or Xinjiang. That these actions on the part of the CCP are acceptable because they've essentially bribed the world into not caring. Or that if most of the world doesn't care, it's okay to simply pretend something is not morally wrong. 

I would not have wanted you around in the late 1930s, because you probably would have been on Team Appeasement.

If geopolitics is also about geography, China’s investment in Africa is a geopolitical gift to Europe as it reduces African migration to Europe. An old adage says that one should not look a gift horse in the mouth.

Wait, why would it bad to have more Africans in Europe? I'd say Europe might benefit from more open immigration policies. What are you implying?

Besides, Chinese investment in Africa isn't all rosy, and don't you yourself call for "nuanced understandings"? Shouldn't this be one of them? I'm all for international cooperation and investment and assistance to marginalized groups and nations, and I admit the West doesn't have the best track record of offering aid with good terms attached. But the answer to that isn't to just let China offer even worse terms. It's to offer better ones.

Iran also demonstrates how China plays a long-term game of chess (or more accurately, the Chinese game of wei qi) while America plays checkers. 

Okay, but that -- and a lot of the "the Chinese think" language in this piece -- sure feels Orientalizing. From an Asian. Weird. 

Indeed, exactly fifty years ago, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger visited China. He raised many issues with Chinese premier Zhou Enlai. Zhou Enlai only raised one: Taiwan. Why? Americans have forgotten the century of humiliation China suffered from 1842 to 1949. The Chinese haven’t.

They might, if the CCP didn't keep bringing it up. And why do they keep bringing it up? Because it suits their political agenda. 

Also, if Henry Kissinger did something regarding China, you can be reasonably sure it was the wrong move.

The separation of Taiwan from the homeland represents the last living legacy of this century of humiliation. 

Only because the CCP says it does.

And you don't seem to care what the Taiwanese think. Do their opinions about their own country matter to you at all, Kishore?

The PRC has never ruled Taiwan and this "separation" is of a country that was joined, under another government and not all that strongly, for about 4 years. Before that, Taiwan was a colony of Japan, and before that, a colony of an entirely different Chinese government. For most of those centuries, only about a third of it was actually controlled by Qing colonizers. Regardless, the transition from empire to aspiring (though failing) democracy to state capitalist dictatorship does matter. This "inalienable part of China" line of thinking is a fabricated one, tailored to suit the CCP's political agenda.

You seem to have bought the line that Taiwan is inalienably part of China. Do you even care that most Taiwanese haven't? Why do China's views on Taiwan matter more than Taiwanese views about their own country?

Hence, it would be foolhardy for any Chinese leader not to work out extreme options if America walks away any further from the One China policy. China will look for a suitable “Achilles’ heel” in America. As I document in my book, Has China Won? The Chinese Challenge to American Primacy, the role of the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency is one area of vulnerability. This issue is complicated. Yet there’s no doubt that America’s standing in the world will fall sharply if the U.S. dollar loses its global reserve currency status.

Again with the academic remove to obscure the fact that you are essentially endorsing wiping a thriving democracy that does not want to be a part of China and will face mass persecution and massacre (yes, massacre) off the map. 

It would also be foolhardy for China to invade Taiwan, but you don't seem too concerned about how unwise a move it would be.

God, you're worse than Kissinger and I still cannot wait until that eldritch horror exits this world.

Many Americans will not be daunted by this prospect. Since many Americans tend to have a black and white view of the world, where they believe they represent right over wrong, or good over evil, they will console themselves by saying that America is carrying out a noble global mission of defending freedom, democracy, and human rights against an evil, authoritarian, despotic regime, which is oppressing its own people. 

Sure, okay, but in this case there actually is a right and a wrong. In this case, despite the "complexity" of the issues, the ethical path actually is clear. 

To pretend it's not and mock those who say it is is, again, to hide behind both-sidesist garbage.

In any case I am "not daunted by" the prospect of fighting for what's right not because my view of the world is black and white, but because China has fucking missiles pointed at my fucking house.

This brief representation may seem to be a caricature of American views. However, it’s not unfair in suggesting that many Americans, including thoughtful Americans, have a black and white view of the relationships between America and China.

No. 

I have a black and white view of the fucking missiles pointed at my fucking house.

 

It will not be long before China becomes equally stigmatized as another “evil empire.”

It already is an "evil empire". It's not wrong to call a thing by its name.

It is committing atrocities across multiple territories, most of which it has no supportable claim to (East Turkestan and Tibet should not be part of China) and is threatening to invade the democracy next door.  By advising that we ignore this, you are advising that we continue America's own ethical void.

Yet most countries in the world just see China for what it is: a normal country.

"Normal countries" do not commit genocide and threaten to invade their neighbors, you absolute turnip.

 

Americans may wish to dismiss these growing signals of respect for China just as opportunistic moves by countries that just want to benefit from the Chinese economy.

Yes. That's pretty much what it is. We're talking about governments here, not people, and governments can be swayed just as easily by morally-void money stacks, if not more so.

Before falling into a smug attitude of moral superiority, Americans should consider the possibility that the rest of the world is capable of arriving at a sophisticated and nuanced understanding of China.

It's not moral superiority. I want them to remove their fucking missiles pointed at my fucking house.

Anyway, the word "nuanced" (along with "complex" and "rejuvenate" and "national humiliation") is another keyword showing someone's drunk Xi Jinping's juice.

How about this instead: it's possible to have a nuanced understanding of China as a place, set of interrelated cultures, people and history, but see in very stark terms that the CCP is in fact evil, and it's not "jejune" to point this out.

Or this: any "nuanced" understanding of the situation requires also understanding the Taiwanese perspective, among others such as Uighur, Hong Konger and Tibetan perspectives. Namely, that Taiwan is self-governing, does not want to be a part of China, and it is wrong to invade neighboring states. If you call for "nuance" but all you offer is CCP talking points, then the one lacking that nuance is you.

Yet, even as China has become more powerful, it continues to embrace the Western-originated, rules-based order generated by the UN Charter and the UN family of institutions. Anyone who doubts this should read the UN Charter again. Its principles support China.

China is on the Security Council. Of course its principles support China. The UN's "principles" include being utterly useless, and turning a blind eye to invasion, apartheid and genocide. The UN should not be the basis for your ethical code, ever. 

And it has not embraced the "rules-based order" so much as tried to use it to its advantage by keeping Taiwan out.

Equally importantly, China is creating a stable and well-ordered society that is significantly improving the lives of 1.4 billion people.

I don't think the ones in jail in Hong Kong or in death camps in East Turkestan have had their lives improved. But they're inconvenient to your argument so once again you ignore them.

A peer-reviewed, credible academic study done by the Harvard Kennedy School has documented and explained how support for the Chinese government has gone up from 86 percent in 2003 to 93 percent in 2016.

I've read the study and while I'll admit it has a veneer of credibility and is peer-reviewed, that doesn't change the fact that real political research can't actually be done in China. What Chinese citizen would tell a bunch of foreign researchers what they really think of their government?

Besides, a few generations of government control of messaging all the way through school is likely to achieve such results. How and whether one can actually have and express an opinion is transmitted to new generations very differently in China -- for political reasons, not cultural ones. That the operation has likely been successful does not give the government moral cover. 

And it doesn't remove the fucking missiles pointed at my fucking house. 

President Xi Jinping is a man of few words.

Yeah, and most of them seem to be defending genocide and subjugation. You seem okay with that.

I hope he becomes a man of zero words, as soon as possible. 

“China does not, first, export revolution; second, export poverty and hunger; third, cause troubles for you.”

Unless you're Taiwanese (or caught in a BRI debt trap).

 

Most countries in the world would agree with the spirit of Xi’s statement.

Sure, but he intends to do all of those things to Taiwan. Maybe listen to Taiwan, where people know the cake is a lie?

As long as China takes care of its people and doesn’t disrupt the world order...

And dismantle the fucking missiles pointed at my fucking house, perhaps?

...the rest of the world will be able to get along with China.

I'd rather they stood with Taiwan and against, you know, genocide.

Truly, this article is so bad -- from the slimiest kind of genocide denial to the outright dismissal of any sort of Taiwanese perspective -- that if I ever have to read anything like it again I might have a fucking stroke.