RCEP, the world’s biggest trade agreement(economist.com)
economist.com
RCEP, the world’s biggest trade agreement
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2020/11/15/the-meaning-of-rcep-the-worlds-biggest-trade-agreement
165 comments
> However one thing that bug me is that a number of media/opinion tend to characterize the deal as some kind of China nefarious plot even though the initiative came from South East Asia.
I would guess it's a huge win for smaller SEA countries. China could dictate the rules before anyway (big = important) but now they're all supposedly going to play on a level field.
And ASEAN being behind this project, it probably benefits Singapore greatly.
I would guess it's a huge win for smaller SEA countries. China could dictate the rules before anyway (big = important) but now they're all supposedly going to play on a level field.
And ASEAN being behind this project, it probably benefits Singapore greatly.
Japan, South Korea, Australia and NZ are also part of this pact.
In the absence of US leadership in the region it was only a matter of time before some other treaty came into being.
Maybe the region doesn't need US leadership ... just a thought ...
Somehow, this has become a controversial opinion. Trump had a hands-off policy to foreign affairs except where America was directly involved (tariffs, etc). I couldn’t believe that his policies were voted down this month.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Biden/Harris lands us in another Vietnam for some other moral mandate. We went to Vietnam under the pretense of stopping Communism. Just replace Communism with slavery, climate change, sexism, and it becomes plausible based on his rhetoric.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Biden/Harris lands us in another Vietnam for some other moral mandate. We went to Vietnam under the pretense of stopping Communism. Just replace Communism with slavery, climate change, sexism, and it becomes plausible based on his rhetoric.
Or oil in Kuwait or WMDs in Iraq, or ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.
This comment runs too close to slippery slope. Involvement does not equal war. Besides, If you survey the country about the US role in the world I’m sure many people would say they would like the US to be world leader. I personally disagree but not everyone does.
This comment runs too close to slippery slope. Involvement does not equal war. Besides, If you survey the country about the US role in the world I’m sure many people would say they would like the US to be world leader. I personally disagree but not everyone does.
I don’t disagree with your implication though. Even if there had been WMDs in Iraq, it would still be a case of US interventionism, which I am opposed to as previously indicated.
If the US had used the TPP to demonstrate some actual leadership in, for example, upholding environmental and labor Standards rather than trying to shoehorn ways for US corporations to sue foreign governments for lost profits it might still exist.
As it was it was dictated by US corporations and negotiated in secret and killed by a dedicated lobbying effort by concerned citizens.
As it was it was dictated by US corporations and negotiated in secret and killed by a dedicated lobbying effort by concerned citizens.
Is Japan going to basically rearm and formally acquire nuclear deterrent soon?
Actually US had just shown the world its leadership.
I am from NZ. We know nothing about this. Done in secret.
This treaty been publicly listed on the under negotiation treaty page on NZ Gov website for years [1] (Internet Archive link as its now obviously moved to a different page). This includes the guiding principles/objectives for NZ, key outcome targets, various status updates and the ability for the public to make submissions regarding the treaty. This is more than enough to understand the context and purpose of the treaty -- the actual text is generally not publicly available until it has been agreed (there would be little point, there are near continuous changes as the negotiations occur).
I'm not from NZ, but once the treaty text has been concluded the ratification process looks similar to Australia and involves fairly extensive public review (NZ process detailed [2]). You're welcome to read the couple hundred pages national interest analysis, economic analysis and cabinet papers on the treaty as well [3].
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200122083058/https://www.mfat.... [2] https://www.mfat.govt.nz/assets/About-us-Corporate/Treaties-... [3] https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/free-trade-agreements/free...
I'm not from NZ, but once the treaty text has been concluded the ratification process looks similar to Australia and involves fairly extensive public review (NZ process detailed [2]). You're welcome to read the couple hundred pages national interest analysis, economic analysis and cabinet papers on the treaty as well [3].
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200122083058/https://www.mfat.... [2] https://www.mfat.govt.nz/assets/About-us-Corporate/Treaties-... [3] https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/free-trade-agreements/free...
Totally. Wtf. TPPA was headlines for years, now this is signed and I've never heard of it. And I follow the news pretty closely. (kiwi here)
I'm an Ozzie. When the TPAA died it was pretty clear the Chinese were rubbing their hands in glee. Trump had handed them the Trump card in trade negotiations, as it were. This is from 2017:
https://rymndp.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/us-withdrawal-on-tra...
It's funny how it's all turned out. Trump ditched the TPAA, and along with it all those onerous copyright laws everybody hated. So we got a nicely watered down version. China steps into the void. But now on the day the RCEP they championed is signed, China ups the ante on the trade war it's having with Australia. They've banned just our wine imports, and threatening iron ore is next.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/markets/r/ar-BB1b2NMT
The trigger for this trade war? Our prime minister called for an investigation into the origins of COVID-19, right after Trump intimated it was bio-engineered by China and they were engaged in a cover up. Right now China is engaged in what looks to be genocide against their Muslim population, the Uighurs, egregious breaking of agreements with the UK over Hong Hong, threats to Taiwan, destabilising "Island Building" in the South China Sea, and we choose to take a principled stand over a ... conspiracy theory.
I don't know what it feels like in NZ, but we Ozzies feel like we are living in interesting times.
https://rymndp.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/us-withdrawal-on-tra...
It's funny how it's all turned out. Trump ditched the TPAA, and along with it all those onerous copyright laws everybody hated. So we got a nicely watered down version. China steps into the void. But now on the day the RCEP they championed is signed, China ups the ante on the trade war it's having with Australia. They've banned just our wine imports, and threatening iron ore is next.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/markets/r/ar-BB1b2NMT
The trigger for this trade war? Our prime minister called for an investigation into the origins of COVID-19, right after Trump intimated it was bio-engineered by China and they were engaged in a cover up. Right now China is engaged in what looks to be genocide against their Muslim population, the Uighurs, egregious breaking of agreements with the UK over Hong Hong, threats to Taiwan, destabilising "Island Building" in the South China Sea, and we choose to take a principled stand over a ... conspiracy theory.
I don't know what it feels like in NZ, but we Ozzies feel like we are living in interesting times.
You have a government which seems to try to out-Trump Trump on China, not recognising that the US-China policies are about to do a 180 and you guys will be left holding the bag - the bag of having pissed off your biggest export market.
There will be no 180 so long as china’s reckless belligerence in the region continues. In a time when china could have consolidated its soft power, it ends up pissing off nearly every neighbor and starts a land war with India. The Quad is likely to be more influential in the region than this trade agreement.
> Right now China is engaged in what looks to be genocide against their Muslim population, the Uighurs
Enlighten me, please.
Enlighten me, please.
Utter suprise here too. Media has done an amazing job of keeping quiet about this one.
We got Murdoch owning 90% of the news and the other 10% too scared to piss him off.
What's your excuse?
- Straya
...
More seriously though, my guess is this is normally the thing that would hit the news cycle a month or two out but because of covid and every media outlet in the world cashing in on the last few rounds of trump derangement I'm not surprised it was missed.
We got Murdoch owning 90% of the news and the other 10% too scared to piss him off.
What's your excuse?
- Straya
...
More seriously though, my guess is this is normally the thing that would hit the news cycle a month or two out but because of covid and every media outlet in the world cashing in on the last few rounds of trump derangement I'm not surprised it was missed.
"We". FUD.
Something an individual doesn't know doesn't mean it's done in secret.
No it's quite literally done behind closed doors and we have no say in it. The last time a deal was proposed this way, it only came out when it was leaked - as it weakened our IP laws to that so they're comparable with the USA.
If we're able to be sued by US patent trolls or Apple for round corners, there's not a single company in this country that could afford to fight it. Singing happy birthday was never an issue in this part of the world.
No thanks.
If we're able to be sued by US patent trolls or Apple for round corners, there's not a single company in this country that could afford to fight it. Singing happy birthday was never an issue in this part of the world.
No thanks.
There has been many rounds of talks since 2014 when ASEAN countries proposed this. There must be some exposures during the past 6 years. The agreement now needs each country's domestic approval, so you can still have a say in it. The agreement is not in effect yet.
> it weakened our IP laws to that so they're comparable with the USA.
This statement literally makes no sense to me. Care to elaborate? As it stands, I have to admit that your statement suggests to me that you haven't the vaguest idea about U.S. versus NZ IP laws and perhaps have also gotten the idea of strong vs. weak IP laws entirely backwards. Enlighten me, please.
This statement literally makes no sense to me. Care to elaborate? As it stands, I have to admit that your statement suggests to me that you haven't the vaguest idea about U.S. versus NZ IP laws and perhaps have also gotten the idea of strong vs. weak IP laws entirely backwards. Enlighten me, please.
This is how negotiations work everywhere for any kind of deal. Think of some successful past legislation you support - I guarantee that it was negotiated behind closed doors.
Negotiation requires fluidly proposing alternatives in a give-and-take that ultimately leads to an agreement. When the items being given or taken are policies supported or opposed by members of the public, it would be self-sabotage for one half of the negotiation to expose its deliberations to public debate.
Imagine you’re a couple making an offer to buy a house. Do you think it would be smart to expose all your internal discussions about the purchase to the seller along with the offer? Do you think you’d ever succeed at buying a home at a good price if you always made such a disclosure?
I think this argument that a treaty was secretly negotiated is better understood as a general-purpose process argument that can be applied against any treaty or law, not as a meaningful criticism of any in particular. It’s just how the sausage is made.
Negotiation requires fluidly proposing alternatives in a give-and-take that ultimately leads to an agreement. When the items being given or taken are policies supported or opposed by members of the public, it would be self-sabotage for one half of the negotiation to expose its deliberations to public debate.
Imagine you’re a couple making an offer to buy a house. Do you think it would be smart to expose all your internal discussions about the purchase to the seller along with the offer? Do you think you’d ever succeed at buying a home at a good price if you always made such a disclosure?
I think this argument that a treaty was secretly negotiated is better understood as a general-purpose process argument that can be applied against any treaty or law, not as a meaningful criticism of any in particular. It’s just how the sausage is made.
wtf are you talking about? most laws are proposed, debated in public with riders attached, provisions added/removed, etc. in public.
If FTAs were too and if citizens groups were to have a say we'd be putting provisions for putting tariffs on if environmental and worker provisions are not respected rather than a semi private court process where corporations can sue governments for lost profits.
If FTAs were too and if citizens groups were to have a say we'd be putting provisions for putting tariffs on if environmental and worker provisions are not respected rather than a semi private court process where corporations can sue governments for lost profits.
There’s a public process when provisions are added to the laws, but the discussions where each side figures out whether their proposal is going to pass happens in private before the actual votes.
You do have a say, after the negotiations are complete. If you don't like it, call your representatives, vote, etc. If they have to go back and renegotiate, then that is what it is.
China will of course use this treaty and every other tool to obtain their foreign policy goals, as do most countries (it's the goals and tools that vary). Among their current goals is to become the dominant power in East and Southeast Asia, displacing the U.S., and to become the dominant power in the world.
Trade treaties have long been used by countries for those ends. China in particular has heavily used economic power and arrangements to expand political influence. For example, loans to many countries are used to create leverage and sometimes seize valuable strategic assets when the debtors, which most observers knew were not creditworthy, cannot pay them back. For example, China has acquired ports that way (IIRC, the one in Sri Lanka?).
Also, regardless of the situation, China will have the most leverage in any negotiation of an economic treaty (as does the U.S., despite the disinformation that those treaties are to the U.S.'s disadvantage).
The source of the initiative, if that's the case (do you have evidence?) doesn't restrain China or protect the other countries.
Trade treaties have long been used by countries for those ends. China in particular has heavily used economic power and arrangements to expand political influence. For example, loans to many countries are used to create leverage and sometimes seize valuable strategic assets when the debtors, which most observers knew were not creditworthy, cannot pay them back. For example, China has acquired ports that way (IIRC, the one in Sri Lanka?).
Also, regardless of the situation, China will have the most leverage in any negotiation of an economic treaty (as does the U.S., despite the disinformation that those treaties are to the U.S.'s disadvantage).
The source of the initiative, if that's the case (do you have evidence?) doesn't restrain China or protect the other countries.
Fellow citizen of another SEA nation here, also looking forward to this trade agreement.
It seems to me that over the last four years the Trump administration's increased isolationist attitude further incentivized a free trade agreement between ASEAN nations and their partners.
As the article says this should be viewed more as an economic unification of ASEAN and FTA partners, rather than China completely dominating Asia altogether.
It seems to me that over the last four years the Trump administration's increased isolationist attitude further incentivized a free trade agreement between ASEAN nations and their partners.
As the article says this should be viewed more as an economic unification of ASEAN and FTA partners, rather than China completely dominating Asia altogether.
What SEA countries has the Trump administration had a isolationist attitude towards?
There were several caveats in RCEP that were huge red flags domestically. For example , Diary & associated products from NZ to India , Chinese goods getting re-routed through Vietnam (Manufacture a shoe in China , just label it in Vietnam and route to India) etc. that were a problem.
It is worrying that Chinese influence is grappling ASEAN economies , most times it is the worry that they won't play fair with smaller trade partners. For once , a lot of people were happy in my state the agreement was not signed.
> huge red flags domestically
Probably useful to specify what country you are in.
> Diary[sic] & associated products from NZ to India
NZ dairy is generally considered high quality and good cost, so it is unclear what the problem is here
> Chinese goods getting re-routed through Vietnam
People say this like customs enforcement agencies don't know about this. In some cases this is acceptable, but it depends on the exact trade rules about the amount of local content that needs to be added in a country.
Probably useful to specify what country you are in.
> Diary[sic] & associated products from NZ to India
NZ dairy is generally considered high quality and good cost, so it is unclear what the problem is here
> Chinese goods getting re-routed through Vietnam
People say this like customs enforcement agencies don't know about this. In some cases this is acceptable, but it depends on the exact trade rules about the amount of local content that needs to be added in a country.
Sure , I am from India.
The diary sector in India is largely unorganized , these are managed as daily livelihood for poor income families who have at best a few cows that provide them with livelihood. The co-operative sector in India mentioned how imports from NZ will wreck the system , for example the largest co-operative AMUL in India was against RCEP and imports from NZ (https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/india/rcep-amul-warns-mo...)
The exact trade rules and local content are in many cases impossible to vet and verify and are in many cases not transparent. And given the sentiment in India , no one will take chances with China
The diary sector in India is largely unorganized , these are managed as daily livelihood for poor income families who have at best a few cows that provide them with livelihood. The co-operative sector in India mentioned how imports from NZ will wreck the system , for example the largest co-operative AMUL in India was against RCEP and imports from NZ (https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/india/rcep-amul-warns-mo...)
The exact trade rules and local content are in many cases impossible to vet and verify and are in many cases not transparent. And given the sentiment in India , no one will take chances with China
Interesting point on Indian dairy co-ops. The NZ dairy industry, has from the very beginning had a strong co-op focus as well as being concentrated on exports, even as its beginnings in the nineteenth century.
Despite great pushes over the last forty years this remains in modern form to the present day and is seen by NZ farmers as an essential part of their success, as this has allowed them to pool resources and invest in the vertical integration (transport, factories, shipping) to compete overseas. A similar structure also exists in other countries (US with DFA milk, Denmark & Sweden with Arla are also in the top ten global dairy companies)
Until the early 1980s, NZ also operated a very protectionist trade policy dependent on access to traditional markets which ultimately failed badly. This experience and the (painful) resulting changes is a major reason why NZ is such a proponent of trade agreements and multilaterality more generally on the global stage.
Despite great pushes over the last forty years this remains in modern form to the present day and is seen by NZ farmers as an essential part of their success, as this has allowed them to pool resources and invest in the vertical integration (transport, factories, shipping) to compete overseas. A similar structure also exists in other countries (US with DFA milk, Denmark & Sweden with Arla are also in the top ten global dairy companies)
Until the early 1980s, NZ also operated a very protectionist trade policy dependent on access to traditional markets which ultimately failed badly. This experience and the (painful) resulting changes is a major reason why NZ is such a proponent of trade agreements and multilaterality more generally on the global stage.
Sorry but that's what free trade means.
If NZ produces dairy products more efficiently then they deserve the benefits. At the same time in India where manufacturing is far more efficient they have the opportunity to export as many manufactured goods to NZ as they want.
If the Indian government wants to tax their manufacturers to provide support to their now unemployed dairy farmers they are free to do so but ultimately both countries are better off with India paying overall less for dairy and NZ paying less for manufactured goods.
If NZ produces dairy products more efficiently then they deserve the benefits. At the same time in India where manufacturing is far more efficient they have the opportunity to export as many manufactured goods to NZ as they want.
If the Indian government wants to tax their manufacturers to provide support to their now unemployed dairy farmers they are free to do so but ultimately both countries are better off with India paying overall less for dairy and NZ paying less for manufactured goods.
Most people aren’t free trade absolutists — they want a mixture of free trade and national security.
One example is US ITAR restrictions, which prevent certain technologies being exported.
Another is looking to protect local food supplies against foreign competition — eg, dairy co-ops from foreign mega farms.
There’s lots of empirical evidence that a mixed system is more stable with little to no loss to innovation.
Most recently, COVID demonstrated the problem with foreign supply chains.
One example is US ITAR restrictions, which prevent certain technologies being exported.
Another is looking to protect local food supplies against foreign competition — eg, dairy co-ops from foreign mega farms.
There’s lots of empirical evidence that a mixed system is more stable with little to no loss to innovation.
Most recently, COVID demonstrated the problem with foreign supply chains.
There are multiple reasons to have cattle in India. One important ecological reason is production of manure, another is the preservation of local breeds, which often produces high quality but low quantities of milk.
The more immediate concern is that making millions of families dependent on government hand outs would be disastrous.
The more immediate concern is that making millions of families dependent on government hand outs would be disastrous.
I'd understand an uproar against melamine labeled as milk etc being imported from China, but the concept that a pint-size country like NZ (population 5 million) with extremely expensive labor & shipping costs can "wreck" the dairy industry of a country of ~1.4 billion where the cost of labor is a rounding error is astonishing.
>with extremely expensive labor & shipping costs can "wreck" the dairy industry of a country of ~1.4 billion where the cost of labor is a rounding error is astonishing.
You are severely under estimating the cost efficiency of modern mass manufacturing vs a country with very little to no infrastructure in the segment.
You are severely under estimating the cost efficiency of modern mass manufacturing vs a country with very little to no infrastructure in the segment.
All kinds of things are possible these days - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/09/holland-...
This just seems a naked protectionism argument.
Every country plays to its strengths and weaknesses. India is behind much of SEA in manufacturing or infra and would not be competitive with large scale industrial agriculture from NZ & Aus. In the short term it is a loose-loose.
India's strength lies in its size and its ability to pool resources and technology.
Compared to China, India is way more open market, it's institutions are transparent.
Where India has failed vis-a-vis China is its unwillingness to use its market size and pooling ability and play its strengths. India's past economics has been driven by too many western educated economists who fail to see India as a unique case instead have always attempted to use a European or American template for economic development.
India's strength lies in its size and its ability to pool resources and technology.
Compared to China, India is way more open market, it's institutions are transparent.
Where India has failed vis-a-vis China is its unwillingness to use its market size and pooling ability and play its strengths. India's past economics has been driven by too many western educated economists who fail to see India as a unique case instead have always attempted to use a European or American template for economic development.
> Where India has failed vis-a-vis China is its unwillingness to use its market size and pooling ability and play its strengths.
I think most assessment of the Indian economy put the blame on incredible amounts of bureaucracy as one of the main constraints on growth. The same ("we have to protect their jobs") argument is used to protect that.
I think most assessment of the Indian economy put the blame on incredible amounts of bureaucracy as one of the main constraints on growth. The same ("we have to protect their jobs") argument is used to protect that.
Yes there is corruption in India and there is corruption in China, systemic corruption in any country becomes a service, bribes are a way to pay for the service.
Granted it is not nice to have corruption and it introduces gross inefficiencies. But that isn't the primary reason India is lagging behind China, nor is it entirely because of a lack of free markets.
One excellent example would be solar power, India could pool its market capacity, technological ability and finance to have built up a huge ecosystem, but instead it went the route of importing everything, even as it goes about building some of the largest solar projects in the world.
The Chinese are wealthy because they would never let go of such a golden opportunity.
Granted it is not nice to have corruption and it introduces gross inefficiencies. But that isn't the primary reason India is lagging behind China, nor is it entirely because of a lack of free markets.
One excellent example would be solar power, India could pool its market capacity, technological ability and finance to have built up a huge ecosystem, but instead it went the route of importing everything, even as it goes about building some of the largest solar projects in the world.
The Chinese are wealthy because they would never let go of such a golden opportunity.
Yeah! , that is why India is not (yet) a participant on RCEP. Given that I am in rural India , if protectionism saves someone from starvation , I am fine with it.
Protecting a failed industry from modernised competitors doesn't work. The industry has still failed and now lacks incentive to invest in new technology and infrastructure. Having committed to protecting it with tariffs and quotas in the name of jobs, government is now a captured regulator and props up the failed sector further with grants and tax breaks; in other words, it's now a leech on every other sector. Those commanding the sector pocket the majority of the support funds, since government is incapable of ring-fencing or auditing their use.
So the strategy as a whole feeds a cycle of decrepitude, decay, and corruption. Since it's unsustainable, eventually the house of cards collapses and everyone at the bottom of the economic pyramid starves anyway.
It's a particularly nasty case of a policy measure harming the people it was supposed to help. There's an adage in economics, "trade favours the poor"⁽¹⁾. Mark it well.
As a rather extreme example, the so-called "Great Depression" of the 1930s was significantly exacerbated by protectionist trade policies, ostensibly rushed in to shore up local industries with tariffs; in practice this caused the already-declining global levels of trade to collapse entirely.
Protectionism is the opposite of investment and renewal, and an enemy of prosperity.
⁽¹⁾ there's a related saying in political science; "trade stops wars".
So the strategy as a whole feeds a cycle of decrepitude, decay, and corruption. Since it's unsustainable, eventually the house of cards collapses and everyone at the bottom of the economic pyramid starves anyway.
It's a particularly nasty case of a policy measure harming the people it was supposed to help. There's an adage in economics, "trade favours the poor"⁽¹⁾. Mark it well.
As a rather extreme example, the so-called "Great Depression" of the 1930s was significantly exacerbated by protectionist trade policies, ostensibly rushed in to shore up local industries with tariffs; in practice this caused the already-declining global levels of trade to collapse entirely.
Protectionism is the opposite of investment and renewal, and an enemy of prosperity.
⁽¹⁾ there's a related saying in political science; "trade stops wars".
Protectionism in agriculture is quite common all across the board is it not?
And India doesn't even fare that bad If I am not recalling it correctly.
I agree with you in your assessment that protectionism breeds inefficiency, but you are imposing your strictly one sided take on 'what should be' without stopping to consider 'why it is',
it's an answer fit for a class of undergrads, quotes and all, but has little to no real world value as its so generalist in its assumption.
Economics is a black art, and subjectivity matters more than the principles.
I agree with you in your assessment that protectionism breeds inefficiency, but you are imposing your strictly one sided take on 'what should be' without stopping to consider 'why it is',
it's an answer fit for a class of undergrads, quotes and all, but has little to no real world value as its so generalist in its assumption.
Economics is a black art, and subjectivity matters more than the principles.
What you say of agriculture is true, but exposes the strength of landowners as a lobby group, not some innate quality of protectionism. When tariffs, barriers, and subsidies are removed from agriculture, prices fall, and the people eat.
This isn't some abstract argument. If you want to talk about India, notwithstanding that India is so vast and complex a nation that only the unwary say "India this" or "India that" broadly, the country had a decades-long history of protectionism since independence, trying to get by with very low levels of international trade, and this being a crucial factor in the 1991 economic crisis: the government had no foreign currency reserves at time when the balance of trade was catastrophic due to rising global oil prices and the demand for modern goods from abroad.
Liberalization of trade is not without its problems - in particular, increasing wealth inequities, and cultural imperialism by economic means. Nevertheless, the subsequent lowering of barriers corrected the crises and has defined India's catapult to the top levels of international manufacturing and service provision.
This isn't some abstract argument. If you want to talk about India, notwithstanding that India is so vast and complex a nation that only the unwary say "India this" or "India that" broadly, the country had a decades-long history of protectionism since independence, trying to get by with very low levels of international trade, and this being a crucial factor in the 1991 economic crisis: the government had no foreign currency reserves at time when the balance of trade was catastrophic due to rising global oil prices and the demand for modern goods from abroad.
Liberalization of trade is not without its problems - in particular, increasing wealth inequities, and cultural imperialism by economic means. Nevertheless, the subsequent lowering of barriers corrected the crises and has defined India's catapult to the top levels of international manufacturing and service provision.
I imagine if you're posting on HN, you're not at imminent risk of starvation.
(No value judgement on your position though, I generally think that this treaty is a bad thing due to its role in expanding China's power and influence, when it should be contained.)
(No value judgement on your position though, I generally think that this treaty is a bad thing due to its role in expanding China's power and influence, when it should be contained.)
Point taken! It was not so much about me , financials are not a stance for my living.
Philosophical as it may sound , my worry is for the hand cart puller who walks all day in pretty hot sun here , or for that maid whose husband has lost his daily wages due to COVID and how she makes ends meet for her kid selling milk to a co-operative here.
India lives in its villages (quot: Mahatma Gandhi) and taking a livelyhood off in the name of globalization may not augur well with rural households in the long run
I do understand and sympathise, genuinely, but I think this approach is what has held India back for the last few generations. Just look at the speed with which China has modernised over the last 30 years in comparison. Protectionism freezes an economy and society in place.
Yes this policy helps some rural families, but it also condemns all the other rural families to getting only variable quality, intermittently available, expensive dairy products. Every protectionist support for a local industry imposes a cost on everyone else, to the point where everyone benefits a bit from protection, but also pays costs on all the goods and services they themselves consume. It may even be sustainable, but only at the price of sacrificing the chance of a better future.
Change is painful, no doubt about it, but opening up to international markets can also mean opening up to international investment, technical skills and partnerships. It needs to be coordinated and there should also be transition plans to mitigate some of the pain. I do believe it’s for the best though.
Yes this policy helps some rural families, but it also condemns all the other rural families to getting only variable quality, intermittently available, expensive dairy products. Every protectionist support for a local industry imposes a cost on everyone else, to the point where everyone benefits a bit from protection, but also pays costs on all the goods and services they themselves consume. It may even be sustainable, but only at the price of sacrificing the chance of a better future.
Change is painful, no doubt about it, but opening up to international markets can also mean opening up to international investment, technical skills and partnerships. It needs to be coordinated and there should also be transition plans to mitigate some of the pain. I do believe it’s for the best though.
Also, India bare has free-trade within the country. That's the easier and lower hanging fruit.
Holy shit, did this have any significant changes?
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/rcep-other-closed-door...
https://www.bilaterals.org/rcep-ip
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/rcep-other-closed-door...
https://www.bilaterals.org/rcep-ip
Posted something about this earlier in the day but didn't gain any traction.
I think this is one of the most important things of the year along with the corona virus, might signal the end of US economy superiority?
A note is many US alies, Aus, Japan, SK have signed up with this
A note is many US alies, Aus, Japan, SK have signed up with this
It will be useless, since ALL countries in RCEP want to run current account surplus and no one really want the role to absorb surpluses, i.e running current account deficit and ditch capital control and let their currency float.
For this to even work, someone has to run current account deficit and runs capital account surplus (play the role of the US). No one is willing to lol.
NY times actually summarizes it pretty well: It has little impact on legal work, accounting or other services that cross borders, and does not venture far into the often-divisive issue of ensuring greater intellectual property protections https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/15/business/china-trade-rcep...
For this to even work, someone has to run current account deficit and runs capital account surplus (play the role of the US). No one is willing to lol.
NY times actually summarizes it pretty well: It has little impact on legal work, accounting or other services that cross borders, and does not venture far into the often-divisive issue of ensuring greater intellectual property protections https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/15/business/china-trade-rcep...
If it has no actual effect, that’s actually scarier for US partisans than if it was genuinely an economic boon.
The simple reason being that it indicates that all these countries, including US allies, are willing to put their names on an agreement with China which will only serve to anger the US even if there is no material benefit in doing so.
That’s either a huge FU to the US, or more likely, them believing, unlike in 2016 after the TPP, that it’s more important to keep China happy because the US will have relatively less influence in the region.
Either way, it indicates that the leadership of the countries who signed up for this believe that the relative strength of the US vs China in the region has reduced.
The simple reason being that it indicates that all these countries, including US allies, are willing to put their names on an agreement with China which will only serve to anger the US even if there is no material benefit in doing so.
That’s either a huge FU to the US, or more likely, them believing, unlike in 2016 after the TPP, that it’s more important to keep China happy because the US will have relatively less influence in the region.
Either way, it indicates that the leadership of the countries who signed up for this believe that the relative strength of the US vs China in the region has reduced.
I'm sure all these countries would do trade deals with the US if the US had a deal-maker leader who ascribed to the philosophy of win-win.
Is it really a win-win though when alot of deals/projects now already languish?
If people think the investor covenant situation in the US is bad, it's that much worse in asia. A lot of money burning pits and lack of fast progress isn't really going to change unless the situation on the ground can actually improve and it wont happen from diktats (TPP, RCEP, etc) from above.
If people think the investor covenant situation in the US is bad, it's that much worse in asia. A lot of money burning pits and lack of fast progress isn't really going to change unless the situation on the ground can actually improve and it wont happen from diktats (TPP, RCEP, etc) from above.
Not saying RCEP or TPP are good deals - just that if all parties tried to construct mutually beneficial deals there’s every reason to expect countries to trade with USA.
China has deficit with Australia NZ, Japan and Korea. Besides with dual circulation strategy China probably will be more open importing from South East Asia. Therefore, any attempts of decoupling or supply chain realignment will target South East Asia first in which China has a significant influence.
> China has deficit with Australia NZ, Japan and Korea.
Japan had a trade DEFICIT with china in 2019, 15B. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/01/23/business/japan-... "marking a second straight year of red ink amid slowing demand in China"
> Therefore, any attempts of decoupling or supply chain realignment will target South East Asia first in which China has a significant influence.
The governments of India, Vietnam, and Indonesia vehemently disagree with you. And it's not ATTEMPT. Supply chain moving away from China is fully underway for several years already. Foxconn already declared that China is no longer the world's factory. https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/12/foxconn-says-trad...
Japan had a trade DEFICIT with china in 2019, 15B. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/01/23/business/japan-... "marking a second straight year of red ink amid slowing demand in China"
> Therefore, any attempts of decoupling or supply chain realignment will target South East Asia first in which China has a significant influence.
The governments of India, Vietnam, and Indonesia vehemently disagree with you. And it's not ATTEMPT. Supply chain moving away from China is fully underway for several years already. Foxconn already declared that China is no longer the world's factory. https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/12/foxconn-says-trad...
> The governments of India, Vietnam, and Indonesia vehemently disagree with you
Which part they are disagree with?
For the Foxconn statement.. I'll wait and see, they are prone to overpromise
>"Such announcements are far from unusual for Gou, and often, nothing comes of them. In Vietnam in 2007, in Brazil in 2011, in Pennsylvania in 2013, and in Indonesia in 2014, Foxconn announced enormous factories that either fell far short of promises or never appeared."
https://www.theverge.com/21507966/foxconn-empty-factories-wi...
Btw Foxconn just pivot back to China
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphjennings/2020/05/07/iphone...
Which part they are disagree with?
For the Foxconn statement.. I'll wait and see, they are prone to overpromise
>"Such announcements are far from unusual for Gou, and often, nothing comes of them. In Vietnam in 2007, in Brazil in 2011, in Pennsylvania in 2013, and in Indonesia in 2014, Foxconn announced enormous factories that either fell far short of promises or never appeared."
https://www.theverge.com/21507966/foxconn-empty-factories-wi...
Btw Foxconn just pivot back to China
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphjennings/2020/05/07/iphone...
> Japan had a trade DEFICIT with china in 2019
This is completely wrong. Japan has an overall trade deficit, but not with China. It runs a 30B trade surplus trading with China, according to Chinese foreign ministry[1].
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/gjhdq_676201/gj_676203/yz_67620...
This is completely wrong. Japan has an overall trade deficit, but not with China. It runs a 30B trade surplus trading with China, according to Chinese foreign ministry[1].
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/gjhdq_676201/gj_676203/yz_67620...
South Korea never had current account surplus with Japan, more than 50 years and counting. Yes, South Korea wants to run current account surplus, but that does not mean running current account surplus with RCEP. In fact there is nothing contradictory about everyone in RCEP running current account surplus and within RCEP trade balancing out.
"…and within RCEP trade balancing out."
This remains the biggest question, and imo would require china to invest a lot more uncollateralized in SEA than they do already (most doable), or import a lot more from SEA (I do not see this happening).
This remains the biggest question, and imo would require china to invest a lot more uncollateralized in SEA than they do already (most doable), or import a lot more from SEA (I do not see this happening).
"No one is willing to lol."
No one is willing to laugh out loud. I don't know what that means?
No one is willing to laugh out loud. I don't know what that means?
Found the A"I" lol
I believe it's supposed to be "No one is willing to, lol". In this case "lol" is describing what the writer is feeling about this statement, not what the objects of his writing are doing.
The confusion is due to the missing ",". However, it can be surmised that the omission was for brevity or by accident, and not intentionally to convey a meaning which would otherwise be inconsistent with the preceding sentences.
I believe it's supposed to be "No one is willing to, lol". In this case "lol" is describing what the writer is feeling about this statement, not what the objects of his writing are doing.
The confusion is due to the missing ",". However, it can be surmised that the omission was for brevity or by accident, and not intentionally to convey a meaning which would otherwise be inconsistent with the preceding sentences.
No one is willing to run a current account deficit. I'm assuming the "lol" is mocking RCEP overall.
One thing is for sure, as an US expat in SEA, china is #1 economically in the region as far as investing, not because they are any good, but lack of will from US investors in large… and in this environment, I'm not so sure getting in now is best because the lack of high quality collateral available to back investments if things go south (or get hold up for years like they have with projects…)
I'm more interested in to see if this will translate to more offshore usage of the chy, and offshore chy loans… if not, things will remain status quo (boondoggles)…
One thing is for sure, as an US expat in SEA, china is #1 economically in the region as far as investing, not because they are any good, but lack of will from US investors in large… and in this environment, I'm not so sure getting in now is best because the lack of high quality collateral available to back investments if things go south (or get hold up for years like they have with projects…)
I'm more interested in to see if this will translate to more offshore usage of the chy, and offshore chy loans… if not, things will remain status quo (boondoggles)…
> No one is willing to lol
No one is willing to do it. Ha ha ha.
No one is willing to do it. Ha ha ha.
The only thing matters here is the trade deal between Japan and China.
> Posted something about this earlier in the day but didn't gain any traction.
AFAIK, hacker new is moderated and only 1 article about a topic can show up on the front page.
AFAIK, hacker new is moderated and only 1 article about a topic can show up on the front page.
I was shocked by that. Does anyone who knows more about this or foreign policy in general want to enlighten us? What motivated Australia, Japan, and SK to sign on to this? Do they not fear alienating the US? I suppose once we scuttled the TPP they had no alternatives?
For Australia it's our Raw Materials (Iron Ore, Coal that sort of stuff) and Natural Gas. China, Japan, Korea are huge trading partners.
Education is the other big item, Australian universities attract a lot of foreign students and that sector is a big money earner. On the radio this morning there was talk about standardizing qualifications making more Australian degrees recognized in member countries.
It comes along at a pretty interesting time there are a lot of tension between China and Australia at the moment. There's handwringing locally over China being granted 99 year ownership leases on some of our ports. Chinese telecom firm Huawei was blocked from our 5G network for "National security" etc.
China has been threatening to block (and in some cases have blocked) shipments of Australian products there have been tariffs on Australian Barley implemented etc, ostensibly in retaliation to some foreign affair stuff. Australia called for an international enquiry into origins of Covid which really annoyed China.
Education is the other big item, Australian universities attract a lot of foreign students and that sector is a big money earner. On the radio this morning there was talk about standardizing qualifications making more Australian degrees recognized in member countries.
It comes along at a pretty interesting time there are a lot of tension between China and Australia at the moment. There's handwringing locally over China being granted 99 year ownership leases on some of our ports. Chinese telecom firm Huawei was blocked from our 5G network for "National security" etc.
China has been threatening to block (and in some cases have blocked) shipments of Australian products there have been tariffs on Australian Barley implemented etc, ostensibly in retaliation to some foreign affair stuff. Australia called for an international enquiry into origins of Covid which really annoyed China.
> Education is the other big item, Australian universities attract a lot of foreign students and that sector is a big money earner. On the radio this morning there was talk about standardizing qualifications making more Australian degrees recognized in member countries.
This is so fascinating! I knew Australia hosts a lot of Chinese students but they're really on their way to making education an export of theirs. Thanks for the perspective. I'm beginning to see the huge potentials of this treaty for the parties involved.
This is so fascinating! I knew Australia hosts a lot of Chinese students but they're really on their way to making education an export of theirs. Thanks for the perspective. I'm beginning to see the huge potentials of this treaty for the parties involved.
IIRC education is Australia's 3rd largest export.
Part of the education deal is access to short or long term migration to Australia, so the dollar figure really a combination of education, lifestyle and migration opportunities.
South Korean here. To me, RCEP seemed like an obviously good thing to sign, and I am shocked that people in US are shocked or that they think SK should fear alienating US. TPP is irrelevant since SK was never a party to TPP.
What do you think about the IP parts of RCEP?
I find it unfortunate, but I recognize that as a newly minted culture exporting nation South Korea at large is in favor of stronger copyright enforcement, and that my personal opinion that copyright is currently too strong and detrimental to culture holds little sway.
> What motivated Australia, Japan, and SK to sign on to this?
Most likely the fact that the US becoming more isolationist forces traditional allies to enter into agreements that they wouldn't have considered previously. In this instance, this is the first trade agreement that has had China, Japan, and South Korea as signatories. Also, despite their posturing China is a HUGE economic power and everyone in the region would prefer to ride that wave instead of be crushed by it.
> Do they not fear alienating the US?
To a certain extent the US has alienated the rest of the world with it's "America first" Trump policy. This is just the logical progression of countries moving on to fill the economic power gap the US has left in the Pacific.
> I suppose once we scuttled the TPP they had no alternatives?
Lol. Everyone else went onto sign the CPTTP which went into effect 30 Dec 2018 which was largely identical to the original TTP, excluding the inclusion of the US of course.
Most likely the fact that the US becoming more isolationist forces traditional allies to enter into agreements that they wouldn't have considered previously. In this instance, this is the first trade agreement that has had China, Japan, and South Korea as signatories. Also, despite their posturing China is a HUGE economic power and everyone in the region would prefer to ride that wave instead of be crushed by it.
> Do they not fear alienating the US?
To a certain extent the US has alienated the rest of the world with it's "America first" Trump policy. This is just the logical progression of countries moving on to fill the economic power gap the US has left in the Pacific.
> I suppose once we scuttled the TPP they had no alternatives?
Lol. Everyone else went onto sign the CPTTP which went into effect 30 Dec 2018 which was largely identical to the original TTP, excluding the inclusion of the US of course.
> What motivated Australia, Japan, and SK to sign on to this
Money apparently. China will lift its tariff against 90% of imports from Japan, increasing from 8% currently. Also Japan and Korea would have similar tariff treatment between each other. South Korea and China already had their own FTA, so it won't matter that much, but has no negative impact either.
Money apparently. China will lift its tariff against 90% of imports from Japan, increasing from 8% currently. Also Japan and Korea would have similar tariff treatment between each other. South Korea and China already had their own FTA, so it won't matter that much, but has no negative impact either.
Exactly, Japan actually benefits more.
Australia, Japan, and SK are sovereign nations.
Totally agree. I'm not passing any judgments on what they did. It's just that in other areas of policy, they've been apprehensive about China so I'm shocked to see this. They must have had good reasons for doing this so I want to better understand their perspective on this and how that ties into those countries' strategy for managing an emerging superpower that rivals their traditional ally.
Relations between China and other Asian countries aren't as bad as what the western mainstream media portrays. China is far more willing to negotiate win-win deals, and is far less of a boogeyman/invader, than what mainstream media wants you to believe. Pompeo visited many countries, urging everyone to 'unite and stand up against the bully that is China', but the reality is very different from that narrative, and as a result Asian countries signed the RCEP instead.
The Western narrative of China is a bubble of alternate reality. This RCEP event shows you just how alternate it is.
The Western narrative of China is a bubble of alternate reality. This RCEP event shows you just how alternate it is.
South Korea is a trading nation, and is in favor of free trade. South Korea defaults to yes for trade deals. US is an ally, but if US is against free trade, South Korea will not go with US. Unlike US, international trade is of vital importance to South Korea.
Australia has never been and will never be a sovereign nation. It used to be part of the british empire and is now part of the american led anglo-protectorate. They are part of the anglo world and I can't ever see us letting them leave.
Sovereign nations don't have foreign occupation forces. Japan and SK are occupied client/vassal/satellite states. We can call them allies if we want to save face, but if china or russia had occupation forces there, we'd call them vassals or satellites or client. Ultimately that's what they are.
We'd never call warsaw-pact nations sovereign states, wonder why we call japan or sk sovereign states?
Sovereign nations don't have foreign occupation forces. Japan and SK are occupied client/vassal/satellite states. We can call them allies if we want to save face, but if china or russia had occupation forces there, we'd call them vassals or satellites or client. Ultimately that's what they are.
We'd never call warsaw-pact nations sovereign states, wonder why we call japan or sk sovereign states?
Let's go back before the British arrived. There were many (and still are) many sovereign indigenous nations in what's now known as Australia
> There were many (and still are) many sovereign indigenous nations in what's now known as Australia
There are no sovereign indigenous nations in australia. You will not find them as members in the UN, you will not find them on maps, they cannot form any sovereign treaties with other nations, etc.
The idea of "sovereign indigenous nations" is just virtue signaling. Maybe one day they will be free and sovereign nations, but I seriously doubt it.
There are no sovereign indigenous nations in australia. You will not find them as members in the UN, you will not find them on maps, they cannot form any sovereign treaties with other nations, etc.
The idea of "sovereign indigenous nations" is just virtue signaling. Maybe one day they will be free and sovereign nations, but I seriously doubt it.
[deleted]
Many years later, as he knelt before Emperor Xi, Donald Trump Jr. was to remember that distant afternoon when his father had a chance to form TPP, the everyone but China trade agreement.
A good twitter thread on how U.S. should response
https://twitter.com/EvanFeigenbaum/status/132806358305853030...
https://twitter.com/EvanFeigenbaum/status/132806358305853030...
The link to [1] is an interesting take that questions the future of Asia as bipolar (China vs US)
[1] https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/09/09/asia-s-future-beyon...
[1] https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/09/09/asia-s-future-beyon...
As someone in Australia, where our biggest trading partner is China and our primary security alliance and our 3rd biggest trading partner is the US I hope this is the case, but it is turning out to be pretty difficult.
We are in the middle of the worst trade sanctions ever from China after one of our wonderful ministers went to the US and proposed to Mr Trump an international commission to investigate the origins of COVID-19 in China.
Those from Australia will recognize "a commission" as a way to bury a problem without getting anyone offside, but apparently no one told the Chinese this.
So now we have this stupid pointless commission we can't back down from, China stopped buying our exports, and no one in the US even aware that it was supposed to be a way to help the US out.
We are in the middle of the worst trade sanctions ever from China after one of our wonderful ministers went to the US and proposed to Mr Trump an international commission to investigate the origins of COVID-19 in China.
Those from Australia will recognize "a commission" as a way to bury a problem without getting anyone offside, but apparently no one told the Chinese this.
So now we have this stupid pointless commission we can't back down from, China stopped buying our exports, and no one in the US even aware that it was supposed to be a way to help the US out.
I have a Chinese background, and was in China in January 2020. I witnessed the reporting from both sides and saw things progress on the ground. I have quite a different view.
I don't believe the Australian call for an investigation was genuine/scientific/objective at all. The call was meant as a political attack. There is no way Australia or the US would accept any investigation result that doesn't put the full blame on China. It's a case of 'guilty until proven innocent, and we won't accept evidence of innocence'.
This is shown by the fact that Australia and the US are not interested in investigating whether other countries (including their own) could be related to the origin, nor whether the response outside China has been adequate. Come on, if you're already set on a result, then why begin the investigation in the first place? And why divert resources to such an investigation, when there are much more urgent issues, such as fighting the virus? Such an 'investigation' only serves to legitimize prejudice and political agendas.
It does not surprise me in the least that China sees through these disingenuous intentions.
Earlier this year, China already pledged in front of the UN that they will allow an truly independent, scientific investigation, after the pandemic was over.
Furthermore, China's response to Australia isn't just the result of Australia's call to investigate China. China has been taking punches from Australia for years. Australia went full in on Trump's rhetoric about China being a bully/threat, and has been blasting China in its media for years now. Things inside Australia have escalated so much, that anybody with a Chinese origin is viewed with suspicion for being a potential CCP agent, even if no evidence exists, and even if said person was Australia-born. The COVID-19 investigation call is just the last drop.
Is China sometimes overly sensitive? Yes. Is China always in the right? No. But when you keep insulting a big customer, is it any surprise they chose not to buy from you anymore? The media seems to want to exlusively portrait Australia as a wholly-innocent victim, meaning that that they think it's okay to keep attacking China while being entitled to benefiting from China. In my opinion, Australia needs a dose of self-reflection too, and admit that they too played a part in deteriorating relations.
I hope you guys can continue sort things out at the negotiation table, and mend this broken relationship, rather than continuing to deny own responsibility and to deny this reality where China no longer be walked all over.
I don't believe the Australian call for an investigation was genuine/scientific/objective at all. The call was meant as a political attack. There is no way Australia or the US would accept any investigation result that doesn't put the full blame on China. It's a case of 'guilty until proven innocent, and we won't accept evidence of innocence'.
This is shown by the fact that Australia and the US are not interested in investigating whether other countries (including their own) could be related to the origin, nor whether the response outside China has been adequate. Come on, if you're already set on a result, then why begin the investigation in the first place? And why divert resources to such an investigation, when there are much more urgent issues, such as fighting the virus? Such an 'investigation' only serves to legitimize prejudice and political agendas.
It does not surprise me in the least that China sees through these disingenuous intentions.
Earlier this year, China already pledged in front of the UN that they will allow an truly independent, scientific investigation, after the pandemic was over.
Furthermore, China's response to Australia isn't just the result of Australia's call to investigate China. China has been taking punches from Australia for years. Australia went full in on Trump's rhetoric about China being a bully/threat, and has been blasting China in its media for years now. Things inside Australia have escalated so much, that anybody with a Chinese origin is viewed with suspicion for being a potential CCP agent, even if no evidence exists, and even if said person was Australia-born. The COVID-19 investigation call is just the last drop.
Is China sometimes overly sensitive? Yes. Is China always in the right? No. But when you keep insulting a big customer, is it any surprise they chose not to buy from you anymore? The media seems to want to exlusively portrait Australia as a wholly-innocent victim, meaning that that they think it's okay to keep attacking China while being entitled to benefiting from China. In my opinion, Australia needs a dose of self-reflection too, and admit that they too played a part in deteriorating relations.
I hope you guys can continue sort things out at the negotiation table, and mend this broken relationship, rather than continuing to deny own responsibility and to deny this reality where China no longer be walked all over.
I agree that the Chinese/Australian relationship hasn't been great for a while.
But I think you are radically underestimating the amount of support China has (or had) in Australia. China has made a lot of people rich (to make it clear: not from corruption, but from trade) and there is/was a lot of admiration for how far China has progressed in such a short period of time.
> I don't believe the Australian call for an investigation was genuine/scientific/objective at all. The call was meant as a political attack. There is no way Australia or the US would accept any investigation result that doesn't put the full blame on China.
The Australian Minister who made the call (Peter Dutton) did it just as he returned from a trip to the US. He's something of a mini-Trump (with a worse TV manner) and clearly made the call to get support from the US. It wasn't something that anyone else in government seems to have known about, and support for it has been lukewarm.
In an alternate world, China could have welcomed the call with the proviso that it included the response to the pandemic. The Australian public would have supported that (there is great contempt here for how badly the US handled it), and China could have weakened the Australia/US alliance from that.
> It's a case of 'guilty until proven innocent, and we won't accept evidence of innocence'.
I don't agree with that at all. I think in Australia most people think the Chinese response was good. I think there were initial errors by the regional government (which the Chinese government has already made clear by getting rid of those people) and the inquiry should have found that.
> This is shown by the fact that Australia and the US are not interested in investigating whether other countries (including their own) could be related to the origin
Well there's no real compelling evidence, but I'm sure that could have been included in the inquiry if China had gone to work influencing the terms of reference.
> Australia went full in on Trump's rhetoric about China being a bully/threat, and has been blasting China in its media for years now
This isn't true. Australia signed a free trade agreement the year before Trump came to power and was generally seen as a great trading partner.
Australia had been opposed to Chinese policy in the South China Sea, in Hong Kong and in Tibet, but didn't do anything to help Trump in his stupid trade war.
> Things inside Australia have escalated so much, that anybody with a Chinese origin is viewed with suspicion for being a potential CCP agent, even if no evidence exists, and even if said person was Australia-born.
I can't emphasise enough how strange it is to hear someone claim that. Over 1/3 the population of Australia was born outside Australia, and China is the second most common place of birth of those. I worked in the university sector and we funded almost as many PhD students from China as were born in Australia.
It's true there have been some recent spy cases uncovered. But these have included people with no family relationship to China as well as some born there.
> In my opinion, Australia needs a dose of self-reflection too, and admit that they too played a part in deteriorating relations.
Well I think this incident was entirely Australia's fault, and I think most people realise that and the media has acknowledged it.
But there is no face saving way for Australia to back down, and there is no political appetite in any Australian political party for being seen as bowing to Chinese pressure and suggesting the call would be withdrawn.
My point is that if China had been smarter about this they could have come out ahead in Australia while making the US look bad. Instead they play the "oh we are offended" card and have lost a lot of the support they enjoyed in Australia over it.
But I think you are radically underestimating the amount of support China has (or had) in Australia. China has made a lot of people rich (to make it clear: not from corruption, but from trade) and there is/was a lot of admiration for how far China has progressed in such a short period of time.
> I don't believe the Australian call for an investigation was genuine/scientific/objective at all. The call was meant as a political attack. There is no way Australia or the US would accept any investigation result that doesn't put the full blame on China.
The Australian Minister who made the call (Peter Dutton) did it just as he returned from a trip to the US. He's something of a mini-Trump (with a worse TV manner) and clearly made the call to get support from the US. It wasn't something that anyone else in government seems to have known about, and support for it has been lukewarm.
In an alternate world, China could have welcomed the call with the proviso that it included the response to the pandemic. The Australian public would have supported that (there is great contempt here for how badly the US handled it), and China could have weakened the Australia/US alliance from that.
> It's a case of 'guilty until proven innocent, and we won't accept evidence of innocence'.
I don't agree with that at all. I think in Australia most people think the Chinese response was good. I think there were initial errors by the regional government (which the Chinese government has already made clear by getting rid of those people) and the inquiry should have found that.
> This is shown by the fact that Australia and the US are not interested in investigating whether other countries (including their own) could be related to the origin
Well there's no real compelling evidence, but I'm sure that could have been included in the inquiry if China had gone to work influencing the terms of reference.
> Australia went full in on Trump's rhetoric about China being a bully/threat, and has been blasting China in its media for years now
This isn't true. Australia signed a free trade agreement the year before Trump came to power and was generally seen as a great trading partner.
Australia had been opposed to Chinese policy in the South China Sea, in Hong Kong and in Tibet, but didn't do anything to help Trump in his stupid trade war.
> Things inside Australia have escalated so much, that anybody with a Chinese origin is viewed with suspicion for being a potential CCP agent, even if no evidence exists, and even if said person was Australia-born.
I can't emphasise enough how strange it is to hear someone claim that. Over 1/3 the population of Australia was born outside Australia, and China is the second most common place of birth of those. I worked in the university sector and we funded almost as many PhD students from China as were born in Australia.
It's true there have been some recent spy cases uncovered. But these have included people with no family relationship to China as well as some born there.
> In my opinion, Australia needs a dose of self-reflection too, and admit that they too played a part in deteriorating relations.
Well I think this incident was entirely Australia's fault, and I think most people realise that and the media has acknowledged it.
But there is no face saving way for Australia to back down, and there is no political appetite in any Australian political party for being seen as bowing to Chinese pressure and suggesting the call would be withdrawn.
My point is that if China had been smarter about this they could have come out ahead in Australia while making the US look bad. Instead they play the "oh we are offended" card and have lost a lot of the support they enjoyed in Australia over it.
Thanks for providing your perspective. I'd like to comment on a few things and I hope to hear your thoughts on them.
> The Australian Minister who made the call (Peter Dutton) did it just as he returned from a trip to the US. He's something of a mini-Trump (with a worse TV manner) and clearly made the call to get support from the US. It wasn't something that anyone else in government seems to have known about, and support for it has been lukewarm.
All right. There's a disconnect between the political class and the public.
Unfortunately, this is just one of the multiple diplomatic incidents. There seems to be quite a few China hawks in your government. For example, Australia was the first country to ban Huawei. This looks especially bizarre to me because 1) nobody has ever found proof that Huawei spies, 2) multiple intelligence agencies actually said that they're not worried, and 3) it has been proven that the US spies on its allies, yet nobody's talking about banning US equipment.
You mentioned that Australia doesn't want to be seen bowing to China, yet it looks to me as if you have no problems bowing to the US. And now that you did what the US wanted, they're not even coming to save you by e.g. buying from you. Doesn't sovereignty mean that you make your own decisions?
> Australia had been opposed to Chinese policy in the South China Sea, in Hong Kong and in Tibet, but didn't do anything to help Trump in his stupid trade war.
South China Sea: okay. I also agree that this South China Sea thing needs to be resolved.
But Tibet and Hong Kong? Those are landmines. As far as China is concerned, those are sovereignty issues, and any poking by outsiders is seen as neo-imperialism. And I'm not just talking about the government: the population at large is also not pleased at how foreigners keep poking into Chinese territorial issues. It's seen ast the last remains of 19th century humiliation, where western powers could walk all over China with guns and warships and put people on drugs (literally). I think many westerners don't realize just how sensitive those topics are, in part because they have a bad understanding of China's history (or just don't care at all).
> I can't emphasise enough how strange it is to hear someone claim that. Over 1/3 the population of Australia was born outside Australia, and China is the second most common place of birth of those. I worked in the university sector and we funded almost as many PhD students from China as were born in Australia.
What do you think of these events? Demanding that Chinese-Australians (who were born in Australia) testify in front of parliament that they unconditionally condemn CCP. This looks like "guilty until proven innocent" to me?
https://archive.is/PwwXN (bypasses SCMP paywall)
https://www.smh.com.au/national/i-was-born-in-australia-why-...
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/oct/16/eric-...
> My point is that if China had been smarter about this they could have come out ahead in Australia while making the US look bad. Instead they play the "oh we are offended" card and have lost a lot of the support they enjoyed in Australia over it.
Oh yes, I agree with that. China's public communications and attitude is terrible. They have problems dealing with things in a way that makes westerners comfortable.
Oh the other hand, the reverse is also true: many westerners lack an understanding of China's history, as well as what topics are sensitive and why. They believe western ideology is (or ought to be) universal, and dismiss alternative perspectives out of hand. That doesn't help either.
China is like that Asian kid who's had to endure racism all his life but was afraid to speak up. Now that he built muscles he overcompensates by getting angry at everything he doesn't like. Everybody gets surprised at that behavior and thinks he's just being sensitive for nothing.
I hope both sides can work towards better mutual understanding and cooperation.
> The Australian Minister who made the call (Peter Dutton) did it just as he returned from a trip to the US. He's something of a mini-Trump (with a worse TV manner) and clearly made the call to get support from the US. It wasn't something that anyone else in government seems to have known about, and support for it has been lukewarm.
All right. There's a disconnect between the political class and the public.
Unfortunately, this is just one of the multiple diplomatic incidents. There seems to be quite a few China hawks in your government. For example, Australia was the first country to ban Huawei. This looks especially bizarre to me because 1) nobody has ever found proof that Huawei spies, 2) multiple intelligence agencies actually said that they're not worried, and 3) it has been proven that the US spies on its allies, yet nobody's talking about banning US equipment.
You mentioned that Australia doesn't want to be seen bowing to China, yet it looks to me as if you have no problems bowing to the US. And now that you did what the US wanted, they're not even coming to save you by e.g. buying from you. Doesn't sovereignty mean that you make your own decisions?
> Australia had been opposed to Chinese policy in the South China Sea, in Hong Kong and in Tibet, but didn't do anything to help Trump in his stupid trade war.
South China Sea: okay. I also agree that this South China Sea thing needs to be resolved.
But Tibet and Hong Kong? Those are landmines. As far as China is concerned, those are sovereignty issues, and any poking by outsiders is seen as neo-imperialism. And I'm not just talking about the government: the population at large is also not pleased at how foreigners keep poking into Chinese territorial issues. It's seen ast the last remains of 19th century humiliation, where western powers could walk all over China with guns and warships and put people on drugs (literally). I think many westerners don't realize just how sensitive those topics are, in part because they have a bad understanding of China's history (or just don't care at all).
> I can't emphasise enough how strange it is to hear someone claim that. Over 1/3 the population of Australia was born outside Australia, and China is the second most common place of birth of those. I worked in the university sector and we funded almost as many PhD students from China as were born in Australia.
What do you think of these events? Demanding that Chinese-Australians (who were born in Australia) testify in front of parliament that they unconditionally condemn CCP. This looks like "guilty until proven innocent" to me?
https://archive.is/PwwXN (bypasses SCMP paywall)
https://www.smh.com.au/national/i-was-born-in-australia-why-...
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/oct/16/eric-...
> My point is that if China had been smarter about this they could have come out ahead in Australia while making the US look bad. Instead they play the "oh we are offended" card and have lost a lot of the support they enjoyed in Australia over it.
Oh yes, I agree with that. China's public communications and attitude is terrible. They have problems dealing with things in a way that makes westerners comfortable.
Oh the other hand, the reverse is also true: many westerners lack an understanding of China's history, as well as what topics are sensitive and why. They believe western ideology is (or ought to be) universal, and dismiss alternative perspectives out of hand. That doesn't help either.
China is like that Asian kid who's had to endure racism all his life but was afraid to speak up. Now that he built muscles he overcompensates by getting angry at everything he doesn't like. Everybody gets surprised at that behavior and thinks he's just being sensitive for nothing.
I hope both sides can work towards better mutual understanding and cooperation.
> You mentioned that Australia doesn't want to be seen bowing to China, yet it looks to me as if you have no problems bowing to the US.
It's absolutely a good point and I think under the Trump administration for the first time there was appetite to question this. In a different world China would have taken advantage of that.
Did you know the US failed to appoint an ambassador to Australia for nearly 2 years?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ambassadors_of_the_U...
Australia felt pushed aside by the US.
> What do you think of these events? Demanding that Chinese-Australians (who were born in Australia) testify in front of parliament that they unconditionally condemn CCP. This looks like "guilty until proven innocent" to me?
Yeah sorry about Eric Abetz.
He's pretty much a wack job, and lives to offend people. Do a search for his name on any news site and see what else he's said.
I can't and won't defend him. I'd note that your 3rd link was about how the other parties in parliament tried to get him to apologize and only failed along party lines.
I agree with your characterisation of Chinese/Western relations. I'd note in addition that China clearly decide a couple of years back to take advantage of the US's confused Asia policy and has been quite aggressive because they see a time window to act in.
It's absolutely a good point and I think under the Trump administration for the first time there was appetite to question this. In a different world China would have taken advantage of that.
Did you know the US failed to appoint an ambassador to Australia for nearly 2 years?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ambassadors_of_the_U...
Australia felt pushed aside by the US.
> What do you think of these events? Demanding that Chinese-Australians (who were born in Australia) testify in front of parliament that they unconditionally condemn CCP. This looks like "guilty until proven innocent" to me?
Yeah sorry about Eric Abetz.
He's pretty much a wack job, and lives to offend people. Do a search for his name on any news site and see what else he's said.
I can't and won't defend him. I'd note that your 3rd link was about how the other parties in parliament tried to get him to apologize and only failed along party lines.
I agree with your characterisation of Chinese/Western relations. I'd note in addition that China clearly decide a couple of years back to take advantage of the US's confused Asia policy and has been quite aggressive because they see a time window to act in.
I think the nuance that might be worth diving into is that you're referring to Australia as a single entity
https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/us-ownership-of-aus...
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/07/gough-whitlam-dismissal-lette...
https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/us-ownership-of-aus...
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/07/gough-whitlam-dismissal-lette...
This sounds like it's trying to imply something very sinister, but pretty unclear what it is.
It's true that many Australian companies have significant US ownership, and that ownership has benefited hugely from Australia/China trade.
The Kerr dismissal has had numerous conspiracy theories surrounding it since 1975 when it happened.
If your point is "The US has a lot of influence in Australia" then I think it is better made by going to Canberra and looking straight out of Parliament House at the tallest statute in Canberra of the American Eagle staring down from the center of Australia's defence district.[1]
[1] https://placesofpride.awm.gov.au/memorials/190381
It's true that many Australian companies have significant US ownership, and that ownership has benefited hugely from Australia/China trade.
The Kerr dismissal has had numerous conspiracy theories surrounding it since 1975 when it happened.
If your point is "The US has a lot of influence in Australia" then I think it is better made by going to Canberra and looking straight out of Parliament House at the tallest statute in Canberra of the American Eagle staring down from the center of Australia's defence district.[1]
[1] https://placesofpride.awm.gov.au/memorials/190381
Since you're Australian, please explain something to me. Australia has been calling for decoupling with China for a while now. Now that China gives you what you want, why is it a problem?
> Australia has been calling for decoupling with China for a while now.
What do you mean? trade There's always a "Oh Australia should look for more export markets rather than just China" but there has also been great and deep support for building deeper trade and investment ties with China.
As a specific example, [1] is the Wine Australia export guide for China. They provide guides like this, run trade shows in China for Australian wine producers etc etc.
[1] https://www.wineaustralia.com/selling/by-market/export-marke...
What do you mean? trade There's always a "Oh Australia should look for more export markets rather than just China" but there has also been great and deep support for building deeper trade and investment ties with China.
As a specific example, [1] is the Wine Australia export guide for China. They provide guides like this, run trade shows in China for Australian wine producers etc etc.
[1] https://www.wineaustralia.com/selling/by-market/export-marke...
Well, what's even worse was that the commission made it out to be pointing fingers at China, even though the origin of COVID-19 is still uncertain. Just yesterday, there's news reports that COVID may be in Italy as early as September 19 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-... along with the (not yet peer reviewed) study that COVID-19 may be in Barcelona as early as March 19 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.13.20129627v...
What's even worse is that this sets an ugly precedence where countries first detect a new disease may not want to announce it to the world due to the stigmatisation.
I've been pointing this out for a while on this board, and every time I've done so, I've been either downvoted, flagged or both. Hence the throwaway.
What's even worse is that this sets an ugly precedence where countries first detect a new disease may not want to announce it to the world due to the stigmatisation.
I've been pointing this out for a while on this board, and every time I've done so, I've been either downvoted, flagged or both. Hence the throwaway.
It doesn’t make sense that it wouldn’t be contagious in Italy for all of that time until a major outbreak in Wuhan. If it was truly in Italy in September in 4 different people, it would have exponentially exploded long before the first wuhan case.
Look, (I am assuming here) neither you nor I know how a new strain of a flu is detected. Plenty of people get ill without ever going to the doctors and brush it off as a normal flu, and even if they did, the doctor may just brush it off as a normal flu. The term "you don't know what you don't know" really holds true here, so being the first to detect an illness or publish it does not mean that it where it was originated. I mean the 2009 H1N1 flu was first detected in the US, but originated in Mexico, the 1918 swine flu originated from a US army base, but was first published by the Spanish, hence it has been wrongly labelled as the Spanish flu.
I also have no idea why people have this notion to reject that COVID-19 may not have originated from China, especially the fact that most of the spread of COVID-19 came from Europe, so much so that Gov. Cuomo actually called it the Europe virus. https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article...
I also have no idea why people have this notion to reject that COVID-19 may not have originated from China, especially the fact that most of the spread of COVID-19 came from Europe, so much so that Gov. Cuomo actually called it the Europe virus. https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article...
> Look, (I am assuming here) neither you nor I know how a new strain of a flu is detected
I worked on flu surveillance and monitoring projects for 3 years, and have a forecasting paper published in PNAS (although that was for dengue) so I have some idea how it works.
Most countries have flu surveillance networks, where they sample from general practitioners swabs and look for new strains. In most cases this works reasonably well.
In Australia we have ASPREN for influenza-like diseases. There are also compulsory notification diseases, but in the pre-COVID days these were mostly useful for things like detecting outbreaks of whooping cough or measles, and weren't really used as flu tracking or detection.
> I also have no idea why people have this notion to reject that COVID-19 may not have originated from China
Because the first large scale outbreak occurred in Wuhan in December 2019. It seems pretty odd that it should have originated in Europe, somehow avoided any outbreaks, travelled to China, then come back to Europe via people who have been traced where it suddenly caused a huge outbreak.
> especially the fact that most of the spread of COVID-19 came from Europe, so much so that Gov. Cuomo actually called it the Europe virus
I presume you and everyone knows why this was - that China locked down quickly and Europe didn't.
Look - I guess the European origin is possible. But it's a pretty out-there theory and it needs some pretty extraordinary evidence (and antibody studies aren't convincing on their own) as well as explanations for the problems outlined above. And there's huge evidence pointing to the China origin theory to overcome too.
Take the genomics - there's a single original strain, which was detected in China, and the mutations clearly come off that. Again -it could be possible that strain was transported there but no where else or something, but it is lots of coincidences here, whereas the China origin story fits everything about how every coronavirus we've ever studied before behaves.
I worked on flu surveillance and monitoring projects for 3 years, and have a forecasting paper published in PNAS (although that was for dengue) so I have some idea how it works.
Most countries have flu surveillance networks, where they sample from general practitioners swabs and look for new strains. In most cases this works reasonably well.
In Australia we have ASPREN for influenza-like diseases. There are also compulsory notification diseases, but in the pre-COVID days these were mostly useful for things like detecting outbreaks of whooping cough or measles, and weren't really used as flu tracking or detection.
> I also have no idea why people have this notion to reject that COVID-19 may not have originated from China
Because the first large scale outbreak occurred in Wuhan in December 2019. It seems pretty odd that it should have originated in Europe, somehow avoided any outbreaks, travelled to China, then come back to Europe via people who have been traced where it suddenly caused a huge outbreak.
> especially the fact that most of the spread of COVID-19 came from Europe, so much so that Gov. Cuomo actually called it the Europe virus
I presume you and everyone knows why this was - that China locked down quickly and Europe didn't.
Look - I guess the European origin is possible. But it's a pretty out-there theory and it needs some pretty extraordinary evidence (and antibody studies aren't convincing on their own) as well as explanations for the problems outlined above. And there's huge evidence pointing to the China origin theory to overcome too.
Take the genomics - there's a single original strain, which was detected in China, and the mutations clearly come off that. Again -it could be possible that strain was transported there but no where else or something, but it is lots of coincidences here, whereas the China origin story fits everything about how every coronavirus we've ever studied before behaves.
> Most countries have flu surveillance networks, where they sample from general practitioners swabs and look for new strains. In most cases this works reasonably well.
Yes, I've read about the flu surveillance networks as well. However, these work well in theory, but not always in practice right? The past few years where I've seen the doctor in the UK, they've mostly dismissed anything wrong with me by just giving me some minor medication (this is probably in accordance to meet the waiting target), so things can always be missed out. I mean, there were reports that says the UK and US are best equipped to handle a pandemic, but in reality, we are seeing otherwise.
> Because the first large scale outbreak occurred in Wuhan in December 2019
I would personally say that the outbreak in Wuhan is not really that large scale when you compare it to what's been happening to the rest of the world. The largest scale of it is the media coverage of it since China did a full lockdown of the city. What's even more is that COVID did not seem spread to much of other parts of the country.
> Look - I guess the European origin is possible. But it's a pretty out-there theory and it needs some pretty extraordinary evidence
I had been sceptical about the origin being anywhere outside of China as well initially. But given that more and more news of the possible early detection in COVID in much of Europe before December 2019 (France, UK, Italy and Spain), it does seem to me like there is a greater possibility that COVID could have originated from outside of China. Again, outside of Wuhan COVID was pretty much non-existant in other Chinese cities, even though Wuhan was only locked down late January 2020.
Basically, I'm not saying COVID-19 definitely came from Europe or didn't originate from China, all I've been saying is to have an open mind instead of immediate finger pointing, which as my original comment alluded to, was what the Australian government did.
Yes, I've read about the flu surveillance networks as well. However, these work well in theory, but not always in practice right? The past few years where I've seen the doctor in the UK, they've mostly dismissed anything wrong with me by just giving me some minor medication (this is probably in accordance to meet the waiting target), so things can always be missed out. I mean, there were reports that says the UK and US are best equipped to handle a pandemic, but in reality, we are seeing otherwise.
> Because the first large scale outbreak occurred in Wuhan in December 2019
I would personally say that the outbreak in Wuhan is not really that large scale when you compare it to what's been happening to the rest of the world. The largest scale of it is the media coverage of it since China did a full lockdown of the city. What's even more is that COVID did not seem spread to much of other parts of the country.
> Look - I guess the European origin is possible. But it's a pretty out-there theory and it needs some pretty extraordinary evidence
I had been sceptical about the origin being anywhere outside of China as well initially. But given that more and more news of the possible early detection in COVID in much of Europe before December 2019 (France, UK, Italy and Spain), it does seem to me like there is a greater possibility that COVID could have originated from outside of China. Again, outside of Wuhan COVID was pretty much non-existant in other Chinese cities, even though Wuhan was only locked down late January 2020.
Basically, I'm not saying COVID-19 definitely came from Europe or didn't originate from China, all I've been saying is to have an open mind instead of immediate finger pointing, which as my original comment alluded to, was what the Australian government did.
> Yes, I've read about the flu surveillance networks as well. However, these work well in theory, but not always in practice right? The past few years where I've seen the doctor in the UK, they've mostly dismissed anything wrong with me by just giving me some minor medication (this is probably in accordance to meet the waiting target)
I'm not a medical doctor, but the common cold and influenza have very similar symptoms to non doctors but doctors are good at telling them apart.
> Basically, I'm not saying COVID-19 definitely came from Europe or didn't originate from China, all I've been saying is to have an open mind
No you complained that no one is listening to you and you get downvoted.
Open minds are great. But stop sharing this nonsense until there is better evidence because at the moment it seems pretty weak.
I'm not a medical doctor, but the common cold and influenza have very similar symptoms to non doctors but doctors are good at telling them apart.
> Basically, I'm not saying COVID-19 definitely came from Europe or didn't originate from China, all I've been saying is to have an open mind
No you complained that no one is listening to you and you get downvoted.
Open minds are great. But stop sharing this nonsense until there is better evidence because at the moment it seems pretty weak.
Italy might have had a different strain that doesn't cause as severe symptoms. Even in China, the earliest case was retroactively traced back to October, and nobody noticed anything until December.
It's pretty unlikely it was circulating then (why wasn't it detected) and there are much more likely explanations: contamination and the possibility of antibodies being from other related coronaviruses.
"Spanish flu" didn't start in Spain, after all.
Subtitled, It is unambitious in scope
So, not so big. It rubber stamps the status quo without concern for humanitarian or environmental issues. It marks a "win" for business owners, not workers.
So, not so big. It rubber stamps the status quo without concern for humanitarian or environmental issues. It marks a "win" for business owners, not workers.
How did you derive that conclusion?
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/RCE...
Japan to China tariff reduction went from 8% to 86%. Doesn't seem like a status quo to me.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/RCE...
Japan to China tariff reduction went from 8% to 86%. Doesn't seem like a status quo to me.
Status quo with regard to labor rights and the environment. As the subtitle says, it is unambitious in scope.
Ah right. Though I suppose it's ok for a trade agreement to not also be a supra-national government. Don't know if that's too far from the norm.
I wholeheartedly agree. Baby steps.
> without concern for humanitarian or environmental issues
Probably following Deng Xiaoping advice "Let Some People Get Rich First"
Probably following Deng Xiaoping advice "Let Some People Get Rich First"
Deng shepherded economic reforms critical to China's success after it was left in dire straits by Mao.
What Xi is doing now, such as halting major IPOs because of perceived criticism from successful CEOs, is more akin to Mao's sensitive nature than Deng's economic leadership.
What Xi is doing now, such as halting major IPOs because of perceived criticism from successful CEOs, is more akin to Mao's sensitive nature than Deng's economic leadership.
> What Xi is doing now, such as halting major IPOs because of perceived criticism from successful CEOs
Let's be clear that the consensus now is that the regulatory changes were anticipated to come, and the power broker war manifested in halting ANT IPO.
Of course, Xi is very likely to be responsible for the stop of ANT IPO (no one really can have a substantial evidence, because of the Chinese government's way of operation).
But the worrying part is not that Xi has the power, he always has and will continue to have. One should be surprised if Xi somehow lost that power.
The worrying part is that a unprecedented financial monster feed on the huge data harvested from Chinese citizens privacy (not that Xi really cares about privacy) and practicing a risky lending scheme that is larger than any equivalent US counterpart, were let to rush into IPO in less than 30 days. And can only be stopped by a dictator in a totalitarian country
Everyone should be worried about the power wielded by private cooperation nowadays, they are able to challenge a totalitarian government. Image what they can do in a democratic country...
Let's be clear that the consensus now is that the regulatory changes were anticipated to come, and the power broker war manifested in halting ANT IPO.
Of course, Xi is very likely to be responsible for the stop of ANT IPO (no one really can have a substantial evidence, because of the Chinese government's way of operation).
But the worrying part is not that Xi has the power, he always has and will continue to have. One should be surprised if Xi somehow lost that power.
The worrying part is that a unprecedented financial monster feed on the huge data harvested from Chinese citizens privacy (not that Xi really cares about privacy) and practicing a risky lending scheme that is larger than any equivalent US counterpart, were let to rush into IPO in less than 30 days. And can only be stopped by a dictator in a totalitarian country
Everyone should be worried about the power wielded by private cooperation nowadays, they are able to challenge a totalitarian government. Image what they can do in a democratic country...
> Everyone should be worried about the power wielded by private cooperation nowadays, they are able to challenge a totalitarian government. Image what they can do in a democratic country...
Historically, major merchants won battles with the Chinese imperial government. Being "able to challenge" the communist party and lose is a step down.
Historically, major merchants won battles with the Chinese imperial government. Being "able to challenge" the communist party and lose is a step down.
> major merchants won battles with the Chinese imperial government
Enlighten me, please.
Enlighten me, please.
Trade in opium was illegal, and the merchants operated by bribing imperial inspectors. The government's desire to stop the trade in opium accomplished absolutely nothing.
But if you want a more literal example of winning battles with the emperor, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koxinga .
But if you want a more literal example of winning battles with the emperor, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koxinga .
Wow, this is an alternative version of the history I was taught during my high school, as well as Wiki. Lin Zexu [1] carried out destruction of opium stock at Humen [2]. It was mostly successful in destroying the flow of opium from one its major import source. And disturbed the traders. Eventually results into the 1840's Opium War which requires Britain intervene [3].
But fundamentally, the relation between opium trading and what we are discussing here is nonsensical.
Opium trading is illegal, and hurting the people. It was invented to compensate the trade deficit of Britain [4].
It reflects little of the people's own judgement. Heck, one can reasonably state that Chinese people in 1840s are totally incapable of independent thinking, because of the long tradition of Chinese rulers' policy of "dumb down the peasants".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_opium_at_Humen [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humen [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War#Opium_trade
But fundamentally, the relation between opium trading and what we are discussing here is nonsensical.
Opium trading is illegal, and hurting the people. It was invented to compensate the trade deficit of Britain [4].
It reflects little of the people's own judgement. Heck, one can reasonably state that Chinese people in 1840s are totally incapable of independent thinking, because of the long tradition of Chinese rulers' policy of "dumb down the peasants".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_opium_at_Humen [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humen [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War#Opium_trade
> Wow, this is an alternative version of the history I was taught during my high school, as well as Wiki. Lin Zexu [1] carried out destruction of opium stock at Humen [2]. It was mostly successful in destroying the flow of opium from one its major import source. And disturbed the traders. Eventually results into the 1840's Opium War which requires Britain intervene [3].
You describe what happened but not why. Merchants inside and outside of China wanted to exchange goods and imperial China wanted to restrict this. War was the result.
> one can reasonably state that Chinese people in 1840s are totally incapable of independent thinking
It's interesting that you say this because this is China's current position, that Chinese people in 2020 are too dumb for democracy. It's just another excuse used by those in power to subjugate the population.
Embracing people's lack of knowledge and encouraging them to find good ideas on their own is a feature, not a bug.
You describe what happened but not why. Merchants inside and outside of China wanted to exchange goods and imperial China wanted to restrict this. War was the result.
> one can reasonably state that Chinese people in 1840s are totally incapable of independent thinking
It's interesting that you say this because this is China's current position, that Chinese people in 2020 are too dumb for democracy. It's just another excuse used by those in power to subjugate the population.
Embracing people's lack of knowledge and encouraging them to find good ideas on their own is a feature, not a bug.
Again, what you said is like drug dealers want to trade drugs. That's not comparable to what ought to be discussed.
You instead should focus on the fact that Qing dynasty had a very weak government, which is neither capable of manage her own internal affairs, nor defend herself from foreign invasions.
That's totally different from Xi's China, which can rule China like a company forcing citizens to behave in certain manners, while also project it's influence far and deep.
You instead should focus on the fact that Qing dynasty had a very weak government, which is neither capable of manage her own internal affairs, nor defend herself from foreign invasions.
That's totally different from Xi's China, which can rule China like a company forcing citizens to behave in certain manners, while also project it's influence far and deep.
> Again, what you said is like drug dealers want to trade drugs. That's not comparable to what ought to be discussed.
The stakes during the so-called "Opium Wars" can be seen in the agreements made at the end of it [1],
- China would not establish any more monopolies over its domestic trade
- Several more Chinese ports would open up to foreign trade
- Chinese law would not restrict practicing Christianity
- Foreign diplomats would be allowed permanent stations in Beijing
- Foreigners would be permitted to travel within China
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tientsin#Major_point...
The stakes during the so-called "Opium Wars" can be seen in the agreements made at the end of it [1],
- China would not establish any more monopolies over its domestic trade
- Several more Chinese ports would open up to foreign trade
- Chinese law would not restrict practicing Christianity
- Foreign diplomats would be allowed permanent stations in Beijing
- Foreigners would be permitted to travel within China
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tientsin#Major_point...
Can we stop playing the word game and admit that opium trade is illegal both in China and Britain? And use it to prove that domestic merchants can challenge ccp and force the current Chinese government to change behavior is as about nonsensical as claiming Trump did a perfect job in fighting COVID-19...
> You instead should focus on the fact that Qing dynasty had a very weak government, which is neither capable of manage her own internal affairs, nor defend herself from foreign invasions.
This seems a little broad. The Qing dynasty covers a period of about 300 years. Sometimes they were very strong. Sometimes they were weak. But even that is kind of a shallow view of things.
They enforced a law that all Chinese males had to wear the Manchu hairstyle. This was incredibly unpopular, but it stuck.
They also banned the binding of women's feet. That ban had no effect at all.
Where do those two positions belong on a scale of "government strength"? They look objectively similar to me.
This seems a little broad. The Qing dynasty covers a period of about 300 years. Sometimes they were very strong. Sometimes they were weak. But even that is kind of a shallow view of things.
They enforced a law that all Chinese males had to wear the Manchu hairstyle. This was incredibly unpopular, but it stuck.
They also banned the binding of women's feet. That ban had no effect at all.
Where do those two positions belong on a scale of "government strength"? They look objectively similar to me.
> They enforced a law that all Chinese males had to wear the Manchu hairstyle. This was incredibly unpopular, but it stuck.
It seems that claiming out of context statements on China becomes a standard now?
This was possible because people are killed in tens of thousands.
How is that even relevant to the discussion of whether or not today’s Chinese merchants can force government policy changes?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangzhou_massacre
It seems that claiming out of context statements on China becomes a standard now?
This was possible because people are killed in tens of thousands.
How is that even relevant to the discussion of whether or not today’s Chinese merchants can force government policy changes?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangzhou_massacre
A lot of speculation over Ant IPO but I doubt that it is personal rather than a systemic risk posed by Ant group. Besides not long after Chinese government announced anti trust initiative against tech companies. Not only Ant group is affected.
> Deng shepherded economic reforms critical to China's success after it was left in dire straits by Mao.
A single person isn't responsible for anything in a major country. Especially a country the size of china. Whenever you are told it is, you are being fed propaganda. Whether it's Xi, Putin, Trump, etc.
> What Xi is doing now, such as halting major IPOs because of perceived criticism from successful CEOs
See what I mean. Do you think Xi called any journalist at the WSJ or bloomberg and told them he's going to halt Ant's IPO because of what Jack Ma said? Or do you think it is nonsense "journalists" made up because they needed a story to sell? Sort of like how everyday after the bell, the news gives us a reason for why the dow went up or down a few points? Do you just believe nonsense you read in the newspaper?
> is more akin to Mao's sensitive nature than Deng's economic leadership.
Oh god, it's amazing how people just parrot propaganda. Yeah, deng's "amazing economic leadership". But there is no deng's economic leadership without mao meeting nixon. And mao doesn't meet nixon without hundred or thousands of sino-american meetings behind the scenes. Do you think Mao just decided on a whim one day to meet nixon? Do you think Deng was the one that set out china's econonic goals? Or do you think in a nation of 1.4 billion people, they had help?
Do you think that Ant's IPO was halted because of Xi and what Jack Ma said or do you think it was because china's regulatory agencies and intelligence apparatus had issues with it?
Just think about it. Everyone has the capacity to think and reason. Lucky for the news industry, most people don't bother otherwise, they'd be out of business.
A single person isn't responsible for anything in a major country. Especially a country the size of china. Whenever you are told it is, you are being fed propaganda. Whether it's Xi, Putin, Trump, etc.
> What Xi is doing now, such as halting major IPOs because of perceived criticism from successful CEOs
See what I mean. Do you think Xi called any journalist at the WSJ or bloomberg and told them he's going to halt Ant's IPO because of what Jack Ma said? Or do you think it is nonsense "journalists" made up because they needed a story to sell? Sort of like how everyday after the bell, the news gives us a reason for why the dow went up or down a few points? Do you just believe nonsense you read in the newspaper?
> is more akin to Mao's sensitive nature than Deng's economic leadership.
Oh god, it's amazing how people just parrot propaganda. Yeah, deng's "amazing economic leadership". But there is no deng's economic leadership without mao meeting nixon. And mao doesn't meet nixon without hundred or thousands of sino-american meetings behind the scenes. Do you think Mao just decided on a whim one day to meet nixon? Do you think Deng was the one that set out china's econonic goals? Or do you think in a nation of 1.4 billion people, they had help?
Do you think that Ant's IPO was halted because of Xi and what Jack Ma said or do you think it was because china's regulatory agencies and intelligence apparatus had issues with it?
Just think about it. Everyone has the capacity to think and reason. Lucky for the news industry, most people don't bother otherwise, they'd be out of business.
> And mao doesn't meet nixon without hundred or thousands of sino-american meetings behind the scenes. Do you think Mao just decided on a whim one day to meet nixon?
Interestingly it started with a table tennis player
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ping-pong_diplomacy
Interestingly it started with a table tennis player
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ping-pong_diplomacy
> But there is no deng's economic leadership without mao meeting nixon. And mao doesn't meet nixon without hundred or thousands of sino-american meetings behind the scenes.
This makes no sense. If China were completely isolated, it would still have corrected to the point where it could operate without everybody just dying in the streets. And that correction would have been a suite of economic reforms, since the economic policies were what was making everybody die in the streets. An interaction with the United States might have hastened this, or included some minor US-specific side effects, but over the long term it's meaningless.
This makes no sense. If China were completely isolated, it would still have corrected to the point where it could operate without everybody just dying in the streets. And that correction would have been a suite of economic reforms, since the economic policies were what was making everybody die in the streets. An interaction with the United States might have hastened this, or included some minor US-specific side effects, but over the long term it's meaningless.
The OP is saying Deng's leadership is not the whole picture of China's economic reform.
I read your statement as the same idea.
As for what factors are working in addition to Deng, you might think one way, which is indeed the case; but the OP thinks Mao's work is a part of that as well, which also makes sense.
In the end, I doubt anyone can settle the details here. As CCP does not disclose historical records as openly as US. So literally no one has the data to prove one way or the other.
I read your statement as the same idea.
As for what factors are working in addition to Deng, you might think one way, which is indeed the case; but the OP thinks Mao's work is a part of that as well, which also makes sense.
In the end, I doubt anyone can settle the details here. As CCP does not disclose historical records as openly as US. So literally no one has the data to prove one way or the other.
Found this interesting:
> A paper from the Peterson Institute for International Economics by Peter Petri and Michael Plummer cites modelling showing that it will raise global GDP in 2030 by an annual $186bn (compared with a gain of $147bn from the CPTPP).
> A paper from the Peterson Institute for International Economics by Peter Petri and Michael Plummer cites modelling showing that it will raise global GDP in 2030 by an annual $186bn (compared with a gain of $147bn from the CPTPP).
They always have studies saying the deal will increase GDP by an enormous amount. How can you argue with such a prediction?
Years later, you can analyse the data.
The costs of Australia’s “free trade” agreement with America
https://insidestory.org.au/the-costs-of-australias-free-trad...
> Enough time has now passed and there is enough data to update the Productivity Commission’s model to estimate the effect of AUSFTA on trade. What this shows is that the agreement was responsible for reducing – or diverting – $53.1 billion of trade with the rest of the world by 2012. Imports to Australia and the United States from the rest of the world fell by $37.5 billion and exports to the rest of the world from the two countries fell by $15.6 billion over eight years to 2012.
Years later, you can analyse the data.
The costs of Australia’s “free trade” agreement with America
https://insidestory.org.au/the-costs-of-australias-free-trad...
> Enough time has now passed and there is enough data to update the Productivity Commission’s model to estimate the effect of AUSFTA on trade. What this shows is that the agreement was responsible for reducing – or diverting – $53.1 billion of trade with the rest of the world by 2012. Imports to Australia and the United States from the rest of the world fell by $37.5 billion and exports to the rest of the world from the two countries fell by $15.6 billion over eight years to 2012.
India opted out of RCEP to promote/preseve BANIA corruption/hegemony https://archive.is/1iser https://archive.is/VWFSC
Good that the Indian govt for opting out of this. Till the Chinese can respect our sovereignty and treat us as equals in trade, no free market access should be given to them and existing access should be withdrawn gradually.
Thank you, Donald Trump, for withdrawing from the TPP and replacing it with fuck-all.
Excludes India and USA, so I don't know how big it can really be.
India can try to join later if it changes its mind. RCEP puts a lot of pressure on India either way though. It's kind of interesting how India decided that free trade with 30% of the world is less valuable than protecting its manufacturing from china. If India adopted the chinese model (what americans call "cheating"), it could probably compete against china even with a free trade arrangement, but they're probably not going to do that.
> It's kind of interesting how India decided that free trade with 30% of the world is less valuable than protecting its manufacturing from china
India isn't protecting it's manufacturing from china, but rather ASEAN. China has already moved up the manufacturing value chain. The low end stuff has been getting shipped to ASEAN countries for more than a decade.
> If India adopted the chinese model (what americans call "cheating")
The "chinese" model is actually the american model. It's what japan and the asian tigers all modeled their economy around.
> it could probably compete against china even with a free trade arrangement, but they're probably not going to do that.
Compete in what capacity? China and India are in different leagues now. It's sad that people really believe the nonsense they read on the news. India is even behind ASEAN countries like vietnam when it comes to manufacturing.
Nothing you wrote made any sense.
India isn't protecting it's manufacturing from china, but rather ASEAN. China has already moved up the manufacturing value chain. The low end stuff has been getting shipped to ASEAN countries for more than a decade.
> If India adopted the chinese model (what americans call "cheating")
The "chinese" model is actually the american model. It's what japan and the asian tigers all modeled their economy around.
> it could probably compete against china even with a free trade arrangement, but they're probably not going to do that.
Compete in what capacity? China and India are in different leagues now. It's sad that people really believe the nonsense they read on the news. India is even behind ASEAN countries like vietnam when it comes to manufacturing.
Nothing you wrote made any sense.
Indeed the fact that China's econ is shifting away from manufacturing is not well known [1]
[1] https://www.worldfinance.com/markets/chinas-transitioning-ec...
[1] https://www.worldfinance.com/markets/chinas-transitioning-ec...
What is the Chinese model/"cheating"?
well for one example, what was/is happening in xinjiang is happening all over the countryside (and outside the country too) in less strong-handed forms. children are being aggressively funneled into education pipelines and entire villages are being relocated to be closer to economic centers. in america, these kinds of population changes happen "naturally" at a slower rate, and in a lot of places it doesn't happen at all (e.g., west virginia). china is also offering this kind of aggressive proletarianization "service" to other countries.
Trading with China while Chinese soldiers kill our people on the border is foolish, IMO. So I support our decision here. Its a shame the rest of the world supports that kind of military imperialism.
1. There is no clear evidence as to which side initiated that conflict.
2. There were casualties on both sides. “Chinese soldiers kill our people“ You made it sound like Chinese soldiers killed civilians. Do you have any credible sources to back up your claim?
2. There were casualties on both sides. “Chinese soldiers kill our people“ You made it sound like Chinese soldiers killed civilians. Do you have any credible sources to back up your claim?
> There is no clear evidence as to which side initiated that conflict.
I believe my government in this respect. So that is enough evidence.
> There were casualties on both sides.
I should hope so! China should not be able to get away with illegal encroachment and murder without any cost.
I believe my government in this respect. So that is enough evidence.
> There were casualties on both sides.
I should hope so! China should not be able to get away with illegal encroachment and murder without any cost.
There is, every source stated it man. There was meeting at the contested location, which both sides argued that it belongs to them, and apparently India used to petrol that area. In the meet they had agreed to pull back troops, whilst the Indian side retracted the troops, the chinese did not move an inch. This was observed by Indian troops, when they(about 2-3 initially) went back to enquire this, the Chinese counterpart attack the Indian side with weapons (wire-barbed woods etc) even when weapons were forbidden in that region according to previous agreements. This was clear violation from the Chinese side. Soon the Indian troops got a information about this and they rushed to save their men. And during this clash, most of troops from both sides either died in hand to hand combat or fell down deep into the valley.
The point is that China keeps on extended their claim of what border looks like for them, showing centuries old maps and treaties. Its not just limited to India. They captured few villages from neighboring country Nepal, last year their was a similar issue at doklam in bhutan where India had to step in. They have territorial disputes with All countries, even the region where China doesn't even share border by creating artificial Islands.
It's not about losing small region, but about future consequences, they'll proclaim more land. In fact, No body understand's how they could proclaim and ENTIRE STATE of India (Arunachal Pradesh), which has Its own Democratically elected Govt, since country's independence.
The Chinese Land Grab needs to stop. It's straight up Bullying.
The point is that China keeps on extended their claim of what border looks like for them, showing centuries old maps and treaties. Its not just limited to India. They captured few villages from neighboring country Nepal, last year their was a similar issue at doklam in bhutan where India had to step in. They have territorial disputes with All countries, even the region where China doesn't even share border by creating artificial Islands.
It's not about losing small region, but about future consequences, they'll proclaim more land. In fact, No body understand's how they could proclaim and ENTIRE STATE of India (Arunachal Pradesh), which has Its own Democratically elected Govt, since country's independence.
The Chinese Land Grab needs to stop. It's straight up Bullying.
> every source stated it man.
Of course every Indian source stated that India were on the side of justice, just like Chinese media also gave a bias in favor of China. The thing is, there's no way to know which side is telling the truth. None of their sources can be considered credible on this.
You can try keeping only the "facts" as described by the Indian media in the corresponding Wikipedia entry[1] and see if others agree. My point is: You can't just assert that a unilateral statement is a fact.
> They captured few villages from neighboring country Nepal
"Nepal government says Nepal doesn't have border dispute with China"[2]
"Nepal denies claims of construction by Chinese side within its territory"[3]
Your news sources don't look that credible.
In fact, not only are there no disputes between Nepal and China, but instead there are disputes between Nepal and India.[4]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_China%E2%80%93India_skirm...
[2]: https://reddit.com/r/Nepal/comments/iybcbj/nepal_government_...
[3]: https://thehimalayantimes.com/nepal/nepal-denies-claims-of-c...
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Nepal_border#Bor...
Of course every Indian source stated that India were on the side of justice, just like Chinese media also gave a bias in favor of China. The thing is, there's no way to know which side is telling the truth. None of their sources can be considered credible on this.
You can try keeping only the "facts" as described by the Indian media in the corresponding Wikipedia entry[1] and see if others agree. My point is: You can't just assert that a unilateral statement is a fact.
> They captured few villages from neighboring country Nepal
"Nepal government says Nepal doesn't have border dispute with China"[2]
"Nepal denies claims of construction by Chinese side within its territory"[3]
Your news sources don't look that credible.
In fact, not only are there no disputes between Nepal and China, but instead there are disputes between Nepal and India.[4]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_China%E2%80%93India_skirm...
[2]: https://reddit.com/r/Nepal/comments/iybcbj/nepal_government_...
[3]: https://thehimalayantimes.com/nepal/nepal-denies-claims-of-c...
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Nepal_border#Bor...
You're citing WIKIPEDIA articles? I didn't expect that from HN. I am sorry but they're not a credible sources either.
The current crisis ongoing between Nepal and India is the starting point of all this. If you follow the timeline, it was after the Nepal suddenly woke up after 30 years and started laying claims on territory which was agreed to be part of India. The current sitting govt. is highly biased for the communist, to the extent that somehow the Chinese Envoy has 'special' meetings with PM and internal handling. It's a known fact. There is strategic shift since the new PM who is has communist leaning was sworn in, since day one. Whilst, India shared Open border with Nepal during all this time, Nepal was like a brother, we had everything to share with them.
It is due due to foreign interference from Chinese side these chain of events started taking place. In Past Indian Govt. was very hesitant about border clashes but now it seems like they have had enough of the bullying.
Are you really denying the expansionism by China? If you only care about hyperlink to so called 'International Credible News Sources they're not free from Foreign interference either.
There are issues in past even with Sri-Lanka, The Chinese side has occupied an entire port by debt trap policy. The Thread posed by Chinese Expansionism is real.
> but instead there are disputes between Nepal and India.
There are 2 disputes of minor region. There is no Denial of change in behavior from nepal's side, how come after decades Free trade, Open Borders, where Nepal citizen could literally get their bags and visit any city in India, decide to show their back? that too all of sudden? never in history there was a crisis like this.
Look at the larger picture, China has highest number of territorial disputes , South China Sea, Indian Border Dispute, I wonder how world has forgotten Take over of Tibet. Even Taiwan, Mongolia, Australia, Japan, They internally suppressing millions of Uighurs Muslims voices, and not to forget Hong Kong. They're debt trapping poor nations - in the name of investment they bring everything from China sounds fair enough until even the laborers are from China, its a fishy business, to an extent where they had dock yards and port in their name... It doesn't take a genius to figure out where the way leads, China's been bully for more than a decade now.
The current crisis ongoing between Nepal and India is the starting point of all this. If you follow the timeline, it was after the Nepal suddenly woke up after 30 years and started laying claims on territory which was agreed to be part of India. The current sitting govt. is highly biased for the communist, to the extent that somehow the Chinese Envoy has 'special' meetings with PM and internal handling. It's a known fact. There is strategic shift since the new PM who is has communist leaning was sworn in, since day one. Whilst, India shared Open border with Nepal during all this time, Nepal was like a brother, we had everything to share with them.
It is due due to foreign interference from Chinese side these chain of events started taking place. In Past Indian Govt. was very hesitant about border clashes but now it seems like they have had enough of the bullying.
Are you really denying the expansionism by China? If you only care about hyperlink to so called 'International Credible News Sources they're not free from Foreign interference either.
There are issues in past even with Sri-Lanka, The Chinese side has occupied an entire port by debt trap policy. The Thread posed by Chinese Expansionism is real.
> but instead there are disputes between Nepal and India.
There are 2 disputes of minor region. There is no Denial of change in behavior from nepal's side, how come after decades Free trade, Open Borders, where Nepal citizen could literally get their bags and visit any city in India, decide to show their back? that too all of sudden? never in history there was a crisis like this.
Look at the larger picture, China has highest number of territorial disputes , South China Sea, Indian Border Dispute, I wonder how world has forgotten Take over of Tibet. Even Taiwan, Mongolia, Australia, Japan, They internally suppressing millions of Uighurs Muslims voices, and not to forget Hong Kong. They're debt trapping poor nations - in the name of investment they bring everything from China sounds fair enough until even the laborers are from China, its a fishy business, to an extent where they had dock yards and port in their name... It doesn't take a genius to figure out where the way leads, China's been bully for more than a decade now.
> You're citing WIKIPEDIA articles? I didn't expect that from HN. I am sorry but they're not a credible sources either.
1, The first wikipedia article (the first link) I referenced was not to take it as a source, but to point out that India's unilateral statement is not convincing enough to bring consensus to the table. You missed my point.
2, The second wikipedia article (the fourth link) I referenced is something that all sides already agree on, and is adequately sourced. There's nothing wrong with using Wikipedia entries to give quick access to information to people.
3, I think you may have misunderstood something, HN is not an academic journal, and you would fully expect people to cite Wikipedia entries all the time[1].
> Nepal was like a brother, we had everything to share with them.
This was what India did in 2015: "Nepal border blockade: Hospitals running out of drugs"[2]. And you are calling "Nepal was like a brother"?
> Are you really denying the expansionism by China? If you only care about hyperlink to so called 'International Credible News Sources they're not free from Foreign interference either.
Please don't misinterpret a request for a reliable source as a denial.
I never said that the sources had to be from so called "International Credible News Sources".
After all this time, you have not even been able to give news sources from the mainstream credible media in India's ally, the United States, that support India's claims. (Not just quotes, media also quote the Chinese side)
You keep broadening the scope of the discussion. But those "backgrounds" you introduced, true or not, add little credibility to the India statement you support.
——
Let's end this discussion. At first I replied to "perryizgr8" just wanted to know why he asserted that "Chinese soldiers kill our people on the border", which sounds like they were killing civilians for no reason. By his/her reply, I understood that he/she was just blindly listening to his/her own government. The phrase "kill our people" is just his/her way of adding fuel to the fire, which is unintentionally or intentionally misleading.
[1]: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[2]: https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/10/asia/nepal-border-blockade-dr...
[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25108360
1, The first wikipedia article (the first link) I referenced was not to take it as a source, but to point out that India's unilateral statement is not convincing enough to bring consensus to the table. You missed my point.
2, The second wikipedia article (the fourth link) I referenced is something that all sides already agree on, and is adequately sourced. There's nothing wrong with using Wikipedia entries to give quick access to information to people.
3, I think you may have misunderstood something, HN is not an academic journal, and you would fully expect people to cite Wikipedia entries all the time[1].
> Nepal was like a brother, we had everything to share with them.
This was what India did in 2015: "Nepal border blockade: Hospitals running out of drugs"[2]. And you are calling "Nepal was like a brother"?
> Are you really denying the expansionism by China? If you only care about hyperlink to so called 'International Credible News Sources they're not free from Foreign interference either.
Please don't misinterpret a request for a reliable source as a denial.
I never said that the sources had to be from so called "International Credible News Sources".
After all this time, you have not even been able to give news sources from the mainstream credible media in India's ally, the United States, that support India's claims. (Not just quotes, media also quote the Chinese side)
You keep broadening the scope of the discussion. But those "backgrounds" you introduced, true or not, add little credibility to the India statement you support.
——
Let's end this discussion. At first I replied to "perryizgr8" just wanted to know why he asserted that "Chinese soldiers kill our people on the border", which sounds like they were killing civilians for no reason. By his/her reply, I understood that he/she was just blindly listening to his/her own government. The phrase "kill our people" is just his/her way of adding fuel to the fire, which is unintentionally or intentionally misleading.
[1]: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[2]: https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/10/asia/nepal-border-blockade-dr...
[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25108360
Not the rest of the world. Please. Really not.
China and Japan alone are a little bit smaller than USA and India. But the whole with other countries is bigger than USA and India.
However one thing that bug me is that a number of media/opinion tend to characterize the deal as some kind of China nefarious plot even though the initiative came from South East Asia.
That also includes the discussion of some detail of the trade for example as explained in the article lack of focus on "environmental , labour standards, and rules for state-owned enterprises.". Again those commonly regarded as a poison pill from Beijing, instead of considering that maybe nations in the South East Asia preferred it that way irrespective of what Beijing thinks.