China's announcement to the US. "We're an equal now".

[RestlessSoul]

I'm not as keen on having my nation behave offensively on the world stage. We have been noted as a defensive nation traditionally, but as I'm sure that you know or suspect, that all changed admist middle east issues, particularly 911.

The USA wants access to the world’s markets on it’s own terms, as does China. Not much difference there. Despite China’s one party - nominally communist - government, capitalism is the force behind their growing influence beyond their own (sometimes disputed) borders.

China had many centuries of expansion followed by many centuries of isolationism, and now they are again looking outwards; The US has experienced similar fluctuations, but they’ve been measurable in decades rather than centuries.

The 20th Century is referred to by some historians as the American Century. I wouldn’t count on that being the case for the 21st.

China holds billions of dollars - trillions, according to some reports - in US debt. Which isn’t as bad for the US as it sounds; it is a measure of Chinese confidence in the economic credibility of the USA, that China is willing to extend that sort of credit. US debt is seen as a good risk by international investors.

But the Chinese are right to assert that they are America’s equals now, on the world stage. Are China the bad guys, and the US the good guys? Depends who you ask. Is it inevitable that they will see each other as a threat in the same way the USA and USSR did? Hopefully not.

 

[Revoltingest]

China sent 25 warplanes into Taiwan's air defense identification zone on Monday, the largest breach of that space since the island began regularly reporting such activity in September, Taiwan's Defense Ministry said.

The Chinese flights came a day after the US secretary of state warned Beijing that Washington was committed to the defense of the democratic, self-governed island, which China considers part of its sovereign territory.

The 25 planes dispatched by China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) forces included 14 J-16 fighter jets, four J-10 fighter jets, four H-6K bombers, two anti-submarine warfare planes and an airborne early warning and control plane, according to Taiwan's Defense Ministry.

Taiwan responded by scrambling combat aircraft, alerting missile defense systems and issuing radio warnings to the Chinese planes that they had entered the southwestern corner of the island's self-declared air defense identification zone (ADIZ), a ministry statement said.

China sends 25 warplanes into Taiwan's air defense zone, Taipei says

"PLA" should be changed to "POA" (People's Oppressing Army).

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you think that puts the U.S. in a weaker position, because we have elections?

Yes...in the sense of maintaining long term purpose that
might be at odds with what a free populace would want.
Much like a command economy, a "command government"
cannot be held accountable in any systematic fashion.
It's a self preserving consensus based structure...more
enduring in vision than a democracy.

I don't think continuity changes that much in the U.S., as both major parties have had remarkably similar foreign policy goals and geopolitical perceptions. Our position on Taiwan has been just as consistent as the Chinese.

We're still less consistent because of public pressure &
changing leadership. We fought a war in Vietnam, &
gave up. We fight wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, & are giving
up. Korea....ugh.
We've had our moments, eg, WW2, space race, but we
cannot maintain the consistency of the PRC.

If they want flies, perhaps they should stop using vinegar and start using honey.

To induce Taiwan to join the PRC, the PRC would have to
become something other than what it is. Not likely.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes...in the sense of maintaining long term purpose that
might be at odds with what a free populace would want.
Much like a command economy, a "command government"
cannot be held accountable in any systematic fashion.
It's a self preserving consensus based structure...more
enduring in vision than a democracy.

Maybe, although a "command government" reduces all the guesswork as far as being able to point out who's responsible or who's at fault when things go awry. With our own government, individual liability is more diffuse and harder to pin down. That's how conspiracy theories gain traction in our society, since it is believed that the elected officials hold no real power. It is believed that they are beholden to higher authorities who are too scared to reveal themselves. But that same belief also implies the same continuity and long-term purpose.

We're still less consistent because of public pressure &
changing leadership. We fought a war in Vietnam, &
gave up. We fight wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, & are giving
up. Korea....ugh.
We've had our moments, eg, WW2, space race, but we
cannot maintain the consistency of the PRC.

The wars in Korea and Vietnam continued even despite changing leaders and parties. The Korean War was already winding down when Eisenhower took over, but the Vietnam War continued seamlessly when Nixon was inaugurated. We didn't suddenly switch sides or anything truly drastic. We didn't really give up; Nixon negotiated "peace with honor."

The original objectives for fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer relevant. With Afghanistan, all we really wanted was Osama Bin Laden, and he wasn't even in Afghanistan at the time our forces found him and assassinated him. And with Iraq, the whole thing was to get rid of Hussein. If we pull out now, it's because we stayed much longer than necessary.

We achieved our objectives, and that's the end of it. We're not giving up at all. We finished the job years ago, so there's nothing to "give up." Either way, both of those conflicts continued through multiple administrations and both parties - nothing really changed as a result of the elections or different leaders.

Another thing that comes to mind is that much of what the US government does fluctuates based on whatever crisis happens to be going on in the world at the time. We've set ourselves up as some kind of global policeman, but China doesn't do that. They don't have to worry about Iran or North Korea or Cuba or Venezuela or any of these other places that the U.S. government is scared of. They don't care if Putin invades the Crimea or if Syria uses poison gas on its citizens. It's no skin off China, so why should they care?

To induce Taiwan to join the PRC, the PRC would have to
become something other than what it is. Not likely.

Either that, or they'd have to find a way to shift U.S. public opinion so as to compel the U.S. government to withdraw from any treaties or pledges to protect Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion.

 

[We Never Know]

The USA wants access to the world’s markets on it’s own terms, as does China. Not much difference there. Despite China’s one party - nominally communist - government, capitalism is the force behind their growing influence beyond their own (sometimes disputed) borders.

China had many centuries of expansion followed by many centuries of isolationism, and now they are again looking outwards; The US has experienced similar fluctuations, but they’ve been measurable in decades rather than centuries.

The 20th Century is referred to by some historians as the American Century. I wouldn’t count on that being the case for the 21st.

China holds billions of dollars - trillions, according to some reports - in US debt. Which isn’t as bad for the US as it sounds; it is a measure of Chinese confidence in the economic credibility of the USA, that China is willing to extend that sort of credit. US debt is seen as a good risk by international investors.

But the Chinese are right to assert that they are America’s equals now, on the world stage. Are China the bad guys, and the US the good guys? Depends who you ask. Is it inevitable that they will see each other as a threat in the same way the USA and USSR did? Hopefully not.

In January 2021, Japan owned $1.28 trillion in U.S. Treasuries, making it the largest foreign holder. The second-largest holder is China, which owns $1.10 trillion of U.S. debt.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Do you think that puts the U.S. in a weaker position, because we have elections? I don't think continuity changes that much in the U.S., as both major parties have had remarkably similar foreign policy goals and geopolitical perceptions. Our position on Taiwan has been just as consistent as the Chinese.

I think it's an interesting consideration.
I'll readily admit to having no more than a casual understanding of Chinese politics, and it's a somewhat dangerous subject to rely on that with, for various reasons.
I did used to more closely watch the USSR/USA relationship in my formative years. Definitely the impact of elections and regime changes played a role in strategic planning generally. I wouldn't say it was 'good' or 'bad' per se, though, just that it was impactful.
And I would agree with your point that in this particular context, US policy and planning has been quite consistent despite elections and party changes.

 

[Stevicus]

I think it's an interesting consideration.
I'll readily admit to having no more than a casual understanding of Chinese politics, and it's a somewhat dangerous subject to rely on that with, for various reasons.
I did used to more closely watch the USSR/USA relationship in my formative years. Definitely the impact of elections and regime changes played a role in strategic planning generally. I wouldn't say it was 'good' or 'bad' per se, though, just that it was impactful.
And I would agree with your point that in this particular context, US policy and planning has been quite consistent despite elections and party changes.

I think it's probably more frustrating for our adversaries, since they get a new U.S. leader every 4 to 8 years. But much of the bureaucracy and military leadership are made up of career people whose positions are more permanent. Likewise, there are key members of Congress who have been around for quite a while and are major voices when it comes to influencing policy. So, this has contributed to some consistency between the parties.

During the Cold War, both parties were anti-communist, pro-Western, and patriotic, although Republicans would pressure the Democrats and often criticize them for being too soft on communism. There were also many Democrats who rejected the war hawks like LBJ and pushed for more peaceful policies. I also took an early interest in the Cold War during my formative years. I still remember seeing Nixon's visit to China on TV, as well as Brezhnev when he visited the U.S.