Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would think the USSR would be a pretty undesirable outcome both during its existence and its aftermath. I think the European Union is pretty successful as is Canada. The US does sort of exist with a fair bit of devolution of power for a unitary state, and I am in some ways in favor of greater devolution of power and how taxes and funding is allocated. Where in the US do you live? It seems like if you moved to the US as you stated in the other thread, you might be at least somewhat in favor of a democratic government system with a somewhat high degree of decentralization.
I'm not sure why New Zealand would stay neutral. They had even less of a military for previous wars they've engaged in on the side of their long-standing allies. I think it's more likely that you didn't really know about the various changes in attitudes and events that have transpired in New Zealand in recent years and thought things had stayed static where New Zealand's government and its populace *were* actually pretty receptive to China. However, the Chinese governments taking of that as an entreaty to try to infiltrate NZ politics from multiple levels and the revealing of this to the public has greatly soured both popular perception of and political goodwill towards China in New Zealand. This was arguably very much an unforced error by China's government.
I agree that it's doubtful that any power will directly send troops and engage in open warfare with China so close to its borders. What's more likely is what was seen in Russia when they invaded Ukraine where a lot of financial, materiel, intelligence and diplomatic support was given to Ukraine while Russia was hit with sanctions. Supposedly, this would also be a good chance for Russia to then claw back influence in Central Asia and for India to push its concerns along its border dispute with China, but who knows. What it will likely be though is a bad waste of time and resources for everyone involved. Much better would be for China to so rapidly and thoroughly improve its quality of life and living standards from good and intelligent governance that Taiwanese actually want to voluntarily vote to join with China without any behind the scenes manipulation.
I don't know where you are going with this, china's provinces are like US states, while the power separation is not the same, there are some things that chinese provinces that have more power, while other things the US states are more independent.
However, china also have several "direct" city, that are under the rule of beijing directly. It's similar to washington DC. (china has several cities functions like DC like shanghai and chongqing)
then there are autonomy regions for ethnic minorities. I would say they are comparable to indian reseverations. but the chinese ones are offered more autonomy as they are not subject to the same laws as the rest of the nation.
as for the new SAR hong kong and macau, not going to going to too much detail and I think they have similar degree of autonomy as the ethnic minority regions with different set of laws.
is that enough of devolution of power for a unitary state?
chinese regions have always have high degree of autonomy through out history due to the size of the nation. The difference is a strong vs weak central government. As the chinese have seen throughout history, strong central government = peace and prosperity. weak central government = war and suffering.
States in a federal country have their own legislatures. China's divisions do not have their own except the HKSAR, MSAR and Taiwan. The three also have their own immigration and customs policies.
The ill-informed would tell you the beef is with the CCP, but people who know better know the beef is with the Chinese people. It's the same with Russia. Blaming only the politicians/political party is missing forest for the trees. Just see the laughable Chinese propaganda crap and misinformation maomao is trying to convince people with here, he moved out China god knows how long ago and he still whole-heartedly believes all that garbage.
And China's shenanigans are ongoing. It's not a deep wound. Korea and China's beef with Japan is their business, we don't give any **** about that.
You’re aware the level of control the CCP has over its populace. Wouldn’t you say the comparison is similar to prisoners under duress? The fact that they’ll openly use peoples’ family members as bargaining tools to get people to behave a certain way overseas makes me question how much the average Chinese truly believes in what their government is doing. They’ve been fed lies about Taiwan and don’t know the full story of your history. As much of a cultural clash there is when tourists from the mainland come visit due to different norms around personal space, littering, etc; aren’t you hopeful that these tourists will return home and gain a better perspective even if it’s not 100%? I’ve read defectors from North Korea face similar challenges in the South due to the vastly different lifestyles, and I don’t doubt many probably still defend the Kim regime similar to how many Chinese defend the CCP, probably for similar reasons. Maybe I have too much hope still, I would just like to one day see a Europe type situation in Asia where the past can be put aside for a peaceful future. Obviously the CCP and North Korea are the ones holding that back.
States in a federal country have their own legislatures. China's divisions do not have their own except the HKSAR, MSAR and Taiwan. The three also have their own immigration and customs policies.
as I said, there are various differences and you can't really compare. for example, the SAR and some autonomy regions do not pay tax to central government. So the tax is used and budget within the region only.
if you're in the US and filing tax, you will see that the federal government takes a much higher % of your income than the state. And state infrastructure requires federal funding. I would say the only thing that's the same between china and the US is that both having a strong central government.
I think you are misreading what is considered warmongering. Take the Ukraine conflict. Western intentions are to weaken Russia via a proxy conflict. This is the reason why peace efforts before the war were rejected by West. It's also the reason current peace efforts are unsuccessful. The U.S. doesn't want peace, it wants Russia defeated. If the Ukraine gets obliterated in the process, so long as Russia is weakened it’s a win for the West. This is what is considered warmongering. The U.S. has been at a state of war or contributing to a war for the last nearly 25 years. Taiwan is the latest iteration. No one cared a few years ago. Once China decided to stop bowing to Western interest, now all the sudden Taiwan is a huge deal. I feel bad for the Taiwanese. They are puns in a larger geopolitical struggle.
I do not think it's at all clear that the intent of the collective West is to prolong the conflict or that the West initiated it as a proxy conflict. China's intent towards Taiwan has not changed for a long while--only its economic power and ability to be taken seriously. This priority has grown with China's increase in economic power and political clout and to put this squarely in terms of Western interests has probably more to do with your lack of familiarity with the subject because it has essentially been a topic of discussion within my family my entire life and my parent's entire lives and much of my grandparents. Arguably, it's been a pretty hot button topic for the region for about about a century and a half.
Of the 30 members only 7 met the 2% of GDP target. Interestingly these are also the nations donating the most to the conflict besides Greece. I suspect their 2% has more to do with Turkey. If a war on the continent couldn't spur the members to hit the 2% mark, what will.
There was also a bit of a pandemic and fallout from that to contend with, and meanwhile from that same article you can see that the past decade has seen a gradual adjust mostly towards the guidelines. You should also note that the other members of NATO are for the most part within Europe and they have taken in quite a lot of refugees, sent a lot of non-military aide, and have had their heating, electricity, and fuel prices take hits in comparison as well as some material discomfort, so I think it's pretty short-sighted to put this much stock in the gradual change in spending on defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
I think you overestimate the importance of Chinese wealth abroad. The USA has already sanctioned a few leaders from Hong Kong, and even though it led to Carrie Lam unable to get a credit card, she still just shrugged it off. Xi has already told leaders to take their wealth out of the west, so I really don't think they are going to care much, certainly not enough to make Xi bring his troops back home.
And why do you think a blockade is unlikely? The reason you gave earlier, that they need to fight close to China's borders, does not apply.
I don't think I overestimate the importance of Chinese wealth abroad as I put it as one of several factors mentioned rather than a single overwhelming primary factor. There is nothing I stated that indicates I think this by itself is a singularly important factor that would swing things, because I don't think there is often a singular primary factor for what are fairly complex set of interactions.
A few leaders from Hong Kong is very much a drop in the bucket and it does not disrupt trade and markets to any considerable extent as there isn't much in goods or services we purchase from Hong Kong or Hong Kong purchases from us.
I don't think a blockade is likely because the straits though in the EEZs of both are still signed on to be internationally navigable waters and a blockade covering such a wide swathe of water used by so many allies of either as well as non-aligned forces is both difficult to enforce and fraught with potential for mistakes that would bring in other actors into this very directly. There's both a political and a technical feasibility question in trying to manage a naval blockade whether a naval blockade made by China around Taiwan, or by Taiwan and allies over China. It does not seem tenable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maomao
I don't know where you are going with this, china's provinces are like US states, while the power separation is not the same, there are some things that chinese provinces that have more power, while other things the US states are more independent.
However, china also have several "direct" city, that are under the rule of beijing directly. It's similar to washington DC. (china has several cities functions like DC like shanghai and chongqing)
then there are autonomy regions for ethnic minorities. I would say they are comparable to indian reseverations. but the chinese ones are offered more autonomy as they are not subject to the same laws as the rest of the nation.
as for the new SAR hong kong and macau, not going to going to too much detail and I think they have similar degree of autonomy as the ethnic minority regions with different set of laws.
is that enough of devolution of power for a unitary state?
chinese regions have always have high degree of autonomy through out history due to the size of the nation. The difference is a strong vs weak central government. As the chinese have seen throughout history, strong central government = peace and prosperity. weak central government = war and suffering.
You probably have a hard time understanding where this is going, because you didn't read very well. I didn't say the states were a good example of this as I'm in favor of greater devolution of power in the US. Even so, China's system is much more centralized than that of the US overall in terms of division of power and jurisdiction and amount of legal autonomy from the central government. You're perhaps thinking about day to day operations and management which is devolved to some extent in just about any large entity, but the US system has stronger set boundaries and mechanisms to delay, stop, or reverse the intervention of the higher levels of federal government from intervening into a multitude of state affairs.
I think what's likely is that you simply do not know very much about the government structure of *either* country. You may also have a weak grasp Chinese history or at least have such a grasp of the English language that you may be having issues communicating what you know of it. China has in multiple periods had governments that did not encompass all that much of China today and even when there were political entities spanning larger factions, they oftentimes were embroiled in warfare whether growing, contracting, or undergoing internal revolutions and mass dissent. Meanwhile, there have been periods of greatly flourishing cultures and some prosperity in smaller entities for periods of time including in nation-states that in their time period did not identify as Han Chinese or what would be the Han Chinese concept of the time. Like with just about any other heavily populated large region, the operating mode has been a lot of destruction and rebuilding with fairly rapidly changing boundaries and entities in control. It's essentially for children that we teach the memorization of the succession of mainline dynasties when the actual history encompasses a lot more entities than that and a lot more disruption and changing of boundaries even during those mainline dynasties.
I'm actually not sure given your responses here and the other topic if it makes sense to really discuss things with you, because I feel your statements often just seem quite lazy and without much thought in it which just makes it fairly uninteresting.
I do not think it's at all clear that the intent of the collective West is to prolong the conflict or that the West initiated it as a proxy conflict. China's intent towards Taiwan has not changed for a long while--only its economic power and ability to be taken seriously. This priority has grown with China's increase in economic power and political clout and to put this squarely in terms of Western interests has probably more to do with your lack of familiarity with the subject because it has essentially been a topic of discussion within my family my entire life and my parent's entire lives and much of my grandparents. Arguably, it's been a pretty hot button topic for the region for about about a century and a half.
There was also a bit of a pandemic and fallout from that to contend with, and meanwhile from that same article you can see that the past decade has seen a gradual adjust mostly towards the guidelines. You should also note that the other members of NATO are for the most part within Europe and they have taken in quite a lot of refugees, sent a lot of non-military aide, and have had their heating, electricity, and fuel prices take hits in comparison as well as some material discomfort, so I think it's pretty short-sighted to put this much stock in the gradual change in spending on defense.
I don't think I overestimate the importance of Chinese wealth abroad as I put it as one of several factors mentioned rather than a single overwhelming primary factor. There is nothing I stated that indicates I think this by itself is a singularly important factor that would swing things, because I don't think there is often a singular primary factor for what are fairly complex set of interactions.
A few leaders from Hong Kong is very much a drop in the bucket and it does not disrupt trade and markets to any considerable extent as there isn't much in goods or services we purchase from Hong Kong or Hong Kong purchases from us.
I don't think a blockade is likely because the straits though in the EEZs of both are still signed on to be internationally navigable waters and a blockade covering such a wide swathe of water used by so many allies of either as well as non-aligned forces is both difficult to enforce and fraught with potential for mistakes that would bring in other actors into this very directly. There's both a political and a technical feasibility question in trying to manage a naval blockade whether a naval blockade made by China around Taiwan, or by Taiwan and allies over China. It does not seem tenable.
You probably have a hard time understanding where this is going, because you didn't read very well. I didn't say the states were a good example of this as I'm in favor of greater devolution of power in the US. Even so, China's system is much more centralized than that of the US overall in terms of division of power and jurisdiction and amount of legal autonomy from the central government. You're perhaps thinking about day to day operations and management which is devolved to some extent in just about any large entity, but the US system has stronger set boundaries and mechanisms to delay, stop, or reverse the intervention of the higher levels of federal government from intervening into a multitude of state affairs.
I think what's likely is that you simply do not know very much about the government structure of *either* country. You may also have a weak grasp Chinese history or at least have such a grasp of the English language that you may be having issues communicating what you know of it. China has in multiple periods had governments that did not encompass all that much of China today and even when there were political entities spanning larger factions, they oftentimes were embroiled in warfare whether growing, contracting, or undergoing internal revolutions and mass dissent. Meanwhile, there have been periods of greatly flourishing cultures and some prosperity in smaller entities for periods of time including in nation-states that in their time period did not identify as Han Chinese or what would be the Han Chinese concept of the time. Like with just about any other heavily populated large region, the operating mode has been a lot of destruction and rebuilding with fairly rapidly changing boundaries and entities in control. It's essentially for children that we teach the memorization of the succession of mainline dynasties when the actual history encompasses a lot more entities than that and a lot more disruption and changing of boundaries even during those mainline dynasties.
I'm actually not sure given your responses here and the other topic if it makes sense to really discuss things with you, because I feel your statements often just seem quite lazy and without much thought in it which just makes it fairly uninteresting.
well, i actually studied both systems during my university years here in the US.
you cannot use blanket statement like this because there are numerous nuances in both systems. The only thing that's similar is that both nations have a strong central government at this point of history.
yes I am lazy in my replies as I just get to the point and point out the facts. I only make comments to the actual statements.
the strength of the central government and the style of governing province/states/cities has nothing to do with being han or not. In fact, the current province system and the capital city of beijing was started in the short lived yuan dynasty by the mongols.
I'm not talking about culture or other advancements. Due to the nature of the chinese, cultures actually thrived in hard times due to the need of mental escape when faced with harsh reality. But the overall wellbeing/economy/happiness is at the highest during numerus "prime times" when the central government is the strongest.
since you keep on asking me about my chinese history. let me ask you the american, are you a rep or dem? that would tell me whether you want a strong central government or not.
well, i actually studied both systems during my university years here in the US.
you cannot use blanket statement like this because there are numerous nuances in both systems. The only thing that's similar is that both nations have a strong central government at this point of history.
yes I am lazy in my replies as I just get to the point and point out the facts. I only make comments to the actual statements.
the strength of the central government and the style of governing province/states/cities has nothing to do with being han or not. In fact, the current province system and the capital city of beijing was started in the short lived yuan dynasty by the mongols.
I'm not talking about culture or other advancements. Due to the nature of the chinese, cultures actually thrived in hard times due to the need of mental escape when faced with harsh reality. But the overall wellbeing/economy/happiness is at the highest during numerus "prime times" when the central government is the strongest.
since you keep on asking me about my chinese history. let me ask you the american, are you a rep or dem? that would tell me whether you want a strong central government or not.
Yes, you can actually use that blanket statement as a general description of the two systems. Your responses come off as someone who perhaps did not study very well.
I did not say the style of government was due to being Han Chinese. I have no idea how you jumped to that except that perhaps this again can be attributed to your difficulties with the English language.
There is little to support what you've said about "prime times" being periods of largest expanse under a single unitary government whether historically or in modern times. Certainly outright open warfare is generally a terrible use of resources, but that occurs during and in the midst of the mainline dynasties as well. Even in recent history, the famines of the Great Leap Forward and then the disruption of the Cultural Revolution were quite bad times. You evidently can have a large centralized government make very poor decisions that have terrible ramifications for the people living under the system even when the state is very large and encompasses all of the traditional Chinese heartland.
I voted for a democratic president in the last election, but generally vote a mix including third party candidates otherwise. I do not think the US political system that nudges things into two camps that try to cobble together and divide a host of issues along two poles makes much sense. I find the asking of this question as if it were emblematic of one's political beliefs to be incredibly naive. What did you vote for in your last election in China? Where in China do you live now--didn't you say you live in the US? Why are you in the US instead of China?
Yes, you can actually use that blanket statement as a general description of the two systems. Your responses come off as someone who perhaps did not study very well.
I did not say the style of government was due to being Han Chinese. I have no idea how you jumped to that except that perhaps this again can be attributed to your difficulties with the English language.
There is little to support what you've said about "prime times" being periods of largest expanse under a single unitary government whether historically or in modern times. Certainly outright open warfare is generally a terrible use of resources, but that occurs during and in the midst of the mainline dynasties as well. Even in recent history, the famines of the Great Leap Forward and then the disruption of the Cultural Revolution were quite bad times. You evidently can have a large centralized government make very poor decisions that have terrible ramifications for the people living under the system even when the state is very large and encompasses all of the traditional Chinese heartland.
I voted for a democratic president in the last election, but generally vote a mix including third party candidates otherwise. I do not think the US political system that nudges things into two camps that try to cobble together and divide a host of issues along two poles makes much sense. I find the asking of this question as if it were emblematic of one's political beliefs to be incredibly naive. What did you vote for in your last election in China? Where in China do you live now--didn't you say you live in the US? Why are you in the US instead of China?
great leap forward is mostly good actually as it gives china nukes and rapid industry revolution (just to catch up to a whole century in 1 to 2 decade
cultural revolution is mostly bad unfortunately but it was short and fault was admitted in corrected.
it usually takes time to build "prime time", but only strong centralized government is capable of building "prime time"
are you a dem though? if you are, you would favor a strong central government. that's part of the value for a dem.
I don't think I overestimate the importance of Chinese wealth abroad as I put it as one of several factors mentioned rather than a single overwhelming primary factor. There is nothing I stated that indicates I think this by itself is a singularly important factor that would swing things, because I don't think there is often a singular primary factor for what are fairly complex set of interactions.
A few leaders from Hong Kong is very much a drop in the bucket and it does not disrupt trade and markets to any considerable extent as there isn't much in goods or services we purchase from Hong Kong or Hong Kong purchases from us.
I don't think a blockade is likely because the straits though in the EEZs of both are still signed on to be internationally navigable waters and a blockade covering such a wide swathe of water used by so many allies of either as well as non-aligned forces is both difficult to enforce and fraught with potential for mistakes that would bring in other actors into this very directly. There's both a political and a technical feasibility question in trying to manage a naval blockade whether a naval blockade made by China around Taiwan, or by Taiwan and allies over China. It does not seem tenable.
They are widely used today. If China were to invade then large parts of those waters would be a war zone and commercial traffic tend to avoid war zones unless they have to.
Also, the principle of international water is not set in stone, just look at China threatening countries from navigating through South China Sea. In an event of war, there will be a complete understanding that they can't sail or trade as free as before. It's also not difficult for the USA to setup checkpoints, they have radar that can detect ships from thousands of miles away.
In 99 of 100 cases, the ships will participate and provide the information the USAs coalition needs. In the remaining cases, the USA will be able to handle the rouge ships trying to break through the blockade. This might upset China and its allies, but China has already went to war and the rest don't want to get involved.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
