NationStates

Picairn wrote:

Kandorith wrote:Anyway on topic: even though I have a massive dislike of China, a unified China is better than it falling apart. Every time China was not unified there have been massive wars and civil wars. However brutal the regime is right now, an alternative would most likely be even worse. Hong Kong and Taiwan should remain independent though.

I support the Japan solution, where China would be ruled by a democratic government with a demilitarised army, akin to Japan or Germany. Its territorial integrity would remain largely intact, with the exception of Tibet, Hong Kong and Taiwan. All three would gain independence.

And when Japan nearly becomed the country with the strongest economy———— then US cut it down without much effort.
Maybe Japan is still a fascist country at that time.

I vote we abolish the idea of the nation state.

Port Spratly wrote:

Glorious Hong Kong wrote:I support China's right to exist as a nation-state, but I also support its Balkanization and the independence of many smaller countries such as Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, East Turkestan, Inner Mongolia, and Taiwan. I pray for the CCP's demise every single day. I support the creation of a smaller, freer, more democratic China of which Hong Kong is not a constituent part. Only then can I say I'm proud to be Chinese without lying.

Along with your logic, Why US did not give back Hawaii its sovereignty, also the same logic why Japan keeps the Ryukyu Kingdom with them. Before Japanese occupation, Ryukyu Island is a kingdom of themselves pretty much like Kingdom of Korea. Even though the allies command Japan to withdraw all the territory that does not belong to them pre - WW2, why US did not say anything about Ryukyus, If US forces japan to withdrawn Ryukyu then the same standard is applied to US to release Hawaii.

Me myself did not live in china or support CCP but it is funny to see how hypocrite you guys are

Whataboutism is an admission of guilt. I'm not going down that rabbit hole. China is the topic of this thread.

Feline Goetland wrote:

Picairn wrote:If I do, will you take up your arms and avenge the Uyghurs and Hong Kong-ers?

I think they are Sinostatist.

-snip-

East Kekistan? Is that you?

Translation fyi:

"Hong Kong is a traitor! Tibet will exist! We know that obese people are smelly!"

Delet this pls

Glorious Hong Kong wrote:I support China's right to exist as a nation-state, but I also support its Balkanization and the independence of many smaller countries such as Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, East Turkestan, Inner Mongolia, and Taiwan. I pray for the CCP's demise every single day. I support the creation of a smaller, freer, more democratic China of which Hong Kong is not a constituent part. Only then can I say I'm proud to be Chinese without lying.

1990. The Economist. China's economy has come to a halt.

1996.The Economist. China's economy will face a hard landing

1998. The Economist: China's economy dangerous period of sluggish growth.

1999. Bank of Canada: Likelihood of a hard landing for the Chinese economy.

2000. Chicago Tribune: China currency move nails hard landing risk coffin.

2001. Wilbanks, Smith & Thomas: hard landing in China.

2002. Westchester University: China Seeks a Soft Economic Landing

2003. New York Times: Banking crisis imperils China

2004. The Economist: The great fall of China?

2005. Nouriel Roubini: The Risk of a Hard Landing in China

2006. International Economy: Can China chieve a Soft Landing?

2007. TIME: Can China avoid a hard landing?

2008. Forbes: Hard Landing In China?

2009. Fortune: China's hard landing. China must find a way to recover.

2010: Nouriel Roubini: Hard landing coming in China.

2011: Business Insider: Chinese Hard Landing Closer Than You Think

2012: American Interest: Economic News from China: Hard Landing

2013: Zero Hedge: Hard Landing In China

2014. CNBC: hard landing in China.

2015. Forbes: Congratulations, You Got Yourself Chinese Hard Landing.

2016. The Economist: Hard landing looms for China

2017. National Interest: Is China's Economy Going To Crash?

2018. The Daily Reckoning: China's Coming Financial Meltdown

Give to you. Hope you enjoyed reading these articles

Nacrad wrote:Translation fyi:

"Hong Kong is a traitor! Tibet will exist! We know that obese people are smelly!"

Delet this pls

Yup. Moreover this spammer does not even write colloquial Mandarin. I thought we got some brainwashed Sinostatist. Now I assume that a non-Chinese spammer using Google Translate is a lot more likely.

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:

Glorious Hong Kong wrote:I support China's right to exist as a nation-state, but I also support its Balkanization and the independence of many smaller countries such as Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, East Turkestan, Inner Mongolia, and Taiwan. I pray for the CCP's demise every single day. I support the creation of a smaller, freer, more democratic China of which Hong Kong is not a constituent part. Only then can I say I'm proud to be Chinese without lying.

1990. The Economist. China's economy has come to a halt.

1996.The Economist. China's economy will face a hard landing

1998. The Economist: China's economy dangerous period of sluggish growth.

1999. Bank of Canada: Likelihood of a hard landing for the Chinese economy.

2000. Chicago Tribune: China currency move nails hard landing risk coffin.

2001. Wilbanks, Smith & Thomas: hard landing in China.

2002. Westchester University: China Seeks a Soft Economic Landing

2003. New York Times: Banking crisis imperils China

2004. The Economist: The great fall of China?

2005. Nouriel Roubini: The Risk of a Hard Landing in China

2006. International Economy: Can China chieve a Soft Landing?

2007. TIME: Can China avoid a hard landing?

2008. Forbes: Hard Landing In China?

2009. Fortune: China's hard landing. China must find a way to recover.

2010: Nouriel Roubini: Hard landing coming in China.

2011: Business Insider: Chinese Hard Landing Closer Than You Think

2012: American Interest: Economic News from China: Hard Landing

2013: Zero Hedge: Hard Landing In China

2014. CNBC: hard landing in China.

2015. Forbes: Congratulations, You Got Yourself Chinese Hard Landing.

2016. The Economist: Hard landing looms for China

2017. National Interest: Is China's Economy Going To Crash?

2018. The Daily Reckoning: China's Coming Financial Meltdown

Give to you. Hope you enjoyed reading these articles

Why shall Shanghai ever transfer wealth to the corrupt gov in Beijing for purposes such as OBOR is a good question you should ponder.

Feline Goetland wrote:

Nacrad wrote:Translation fyi:

"Hong Kong is a traitor! Tibet will exist! We know that obese people are smelly!"

Delet this pls

Yup. Moreover this spammer does not even write colloquial Mandarin. I thought we got some brainwashed Sinostatist. Now I assume that a non-Chinese spammer using Google Translate is a lot more likely.

Agreed. A native Chinese person would never write this way... well except 10-year-olds

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:

Glorious Hong Kong wrote:I support China's right to exist as a nation-state, but I also support its Balkanization and the independence of many smaller countries such as Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, East Turkestan, Inner Mongolia, and Taiwan. I pray for the CCP's demise every single day. I support the creation of a smaller, freer, more democratic China of which Hong Kong is not a constituent part. Only then can I say I'm proud to be Chinese without lying.

1990. The Economist. China's economy has come to a halt.

1996.The Economist. China's economy will face a hard landing

1998. The Economist: China's economy dangerous period of sluggish growth.

1999. Bank of Canada: Likelihood of a hard landing for the Chinese economy.

2000. Chicago Tribune: China currency move nails hard landing risk coffin.

2001. Wilbanks, Smith & Thomas: hard landing in China.

2002. Westchester University: China Seeks a Soft Economic Landing

2003. New York Times: Banking crisis imperils China

2004. The Economist: The great fall of China?

2005. Nouriel Roubini: The Risk of a Hard Landing in China

2006. International Economy: Can China chieve a Soft Landing?

2007. TIME: Can China avoid a hard landing?

2008. Forbes: Hard Landing In China?

2009. Fortune: China's hard landing. China must find a way to recover.

2010: Nouriel Roubini: Hard landing coming in China.

2011: Business Insider: Chinese Hard Landing Closer Than You Think

2012: American Interest: Economic News from China: Hard Landing

2013: Zero Hedge: Hard Landing In China

2014. CNBC: hard landing in China.

2015. Forbes: Congratulations, You Got Yourself Chinese Hard Landing.

2016. The Economist: Hard landing looms for China

2017. National Interest: Is China's Economy Going To Crash?

2018. The Daily Reckoning: China's Coming Financial Meltdown

Give to you. Hope you enjoyed reading these articles

China's collapse has been predicted just as many times as Putin's downfall - and none are likely to happen in the short term. Dont expect China's economy to keep this pace forever though. It will most definitely not end like Venezuela (unless something goes insanely wrong) but it will face a temporary slowdown eventually.

There's a saying in Chinese, "天下大勢,合久必分,分久必合", which means, "The way this world works, when it's unified for a long time it'll split, when it's split for a long time it'll unify." I think that China will, probably within our lifetimes, balkanize into tiny states, thanks to Accelerationist Xi.

Nacrad wrote:There's a saying in Chinese, "天下大勢,合久必分,分久必合", which means, "The way this world works, when it's unified for a long time it'll split, when it's split for a long time it'll unify." I think that China will, probably within our lifetimes, balkanize into tiny states, thanks to Accelerationist Xi.

I don't think so. Or, at least, I won't be alive to see it.

Nacrad wrote:There's a saying in Chinese, "天下大勢,合久必分,分久必合", which means, "The way this world works, when it's unified for a long time it'll split, when it's split for a long time it'll unify." I think that China will, probably within our lifetimes, balkanize into tiny states, thanks to Accelerationist Xi.

Yeah. What I care about is making sure that once the Balkanization happens it will never revert again to a single China so that those who love commerce won’t have to live in the same state as more authoritarian-minded regions. Even in a hypothetical democratic China these people could vote for traditionalist or socialist parties en masse and demand wealth transfer from coastal southern China. That’s why I don’t even want a democratic China which still may not protect the rights of my old friends and relatives. Instead I simply want regions of China that are pro-trade and pro-Anglo to secede from areas that are pro-Russia, monarchist, traditional Confucian, Maoist etc. Enough is enough.

I don’t exactly want my hometown to be in a communist state run by Xi or any other person with similar and dangerous national conservative + authoritarian + socialist views. Yeah ironically my views are mostly in line with that of coastal America that simply don’t want to have anything to do with social conservatives in the interior.

China should be able to exist but the ROC needs to be recognized by the UN as a legitimate nation. If the PRC disagrees, they can leave the UN. All countries should recognize the ROC over the PRC if they have to choose only one. They can recognize both but if the PRC tells them they can only choose one, the ROC needs priority. It is time to stop kowtowing to Xi Jinping and Red China.

As far as Macau, this belongs to the PRC because the treaty ended in 1999. However, the British handled Hong Kong badly. The British only had to give up the New territories but they didn't have to give up Hong Kong Island. The British should have kept Hong Kong island and let citizens have a vote on choosing to go back to Red China, independence, or to stay a colony of the UK. The UK handled Hong Kong badly.

If all nations that care about human rights stop trading with the PRC until they improve their human rights and recognize ROC independence, they will either behave because it benefits their economy or they will isolate themselves and become as weak as they were in the 1960's. Their citizens will suffer but perhaps they will wise up and choose a fair leader and not a dictator as their leader.

Freiheit Reich wrote:China should be able to exist but the ROC needs to be recognized by the UN as a legitimate nation. If the PRC disagrees, they can leave the UN. All countries should recognize the ROC over the PRC if they have to choose only one. They can recognize both but if the PRC tells them they can only choose one, the ROC needs priority. It is time to stop kowtowing to Xi Jinping and Red China.

As far as Macau, this belongs to the PRC because the treaty ended in 1999. However, the British handled Hong Kong badly. The British only had to give up the New territories but they didn't have to give up Hong Kong Island. The British should have kept Hong Kong island and let citizens have a vote on choosing to go back to Red China, independence, or to stay a colony of the UK. The UK handled Hong Kong badly.

If all nations that care about human rights stop trading with the PRC until they improve their human rights and recognize ROC independence, they will either behave because it benefits their economy or they will isolate themselves and become as weak as they were in the 1960's. Their citizens will suffer but perhaps they will wise up and choose a fair leader and not a dictator as their leader.

Do you know why two Korea can join UN at the same time, but Taiwan can't?Because if China leaves the United Nations, the United Nations will become like the League of nations.

depopulated? Jesus christ can we not genocide the chinese?

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:depopulated? Jesus christ can we not genocide the chinese?

No. Abolishing China is necessary to prevent another round of depopulation in what is now China. It is the existence of China as a centralized, authoritarian state that led to depopulation as the state usurped functionalities of the society to the point that the society no longer existed and even a temporary absence of the Leviathan could lead to depopulation due to numerous bandits such as Zhang Xianzhong roaming and murdering people.

What’s more concerning is that there are so many WMDs in China. The next round of Chinese Civil War if it happens could be extremely deadly to both subjects of China and the rest of humanity.

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:

Freiheit Reich wrote:China should be able to exist but the ROC needs to be recognized by the UN as a legitimate nation. If the PRC disagrees, they can leave the UN. All countries should recognize the ROC over the PRC if they have to choose only one. They can recognize both but if the PRC tells them they can only choose one, the ROC needs priority. It is time to stop kowtowing to Xi Jinping and Red China.

As far as Macau, this belongs to the PRC because the treaty ended in 1999. However, the British handled Hong Kong badly. The British only had to give up the New territories but they didn't have to give up Hong Kong Island. The British should have kept Hong Kong island and let citizens have a vote on choosing to go back to Red China, independence, or to stay a colony of the UK. The UK handled Hong Kong badly.

If all nations that care about human rights stop trading with the PRC until they improve their human rights and recognize ROC independence, they will either behave because it benefits their economy or they will isolate themselves and become as weak as they were in the 1960's. Their citizens will suffer but perhaps they will wise up and choose a fair leader and not a dictator as their leader.

Do you know why two Korea can join UN at the same time, but Taiwan can't?Because if China leaves the United Nations, the United Nations will become like the League of nations.

That is fine. Red China is just being an aggressive bully. The UN is weak in playing to their game. The UN needs to tell Red China that they are welcome in the UN but that the ROC will be recognized either way. Anyways, the UN is pretty useless as the source below states:

https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-th ... s-10837929

The world did fine when China isolated itself in the 1960's. In fact, for the USA, things were actually better. The world is better with Red China either becoming civilized or being isolated. Letting Red China gain more and more power will endanger their neighbors and possibly the entire world. The Soviet Union had a strong influence over several countries after WWII, does the world want Red China to do the same thing?

Red China is already responsible for North Korea even existing. Millions suffer because the PRC supported North Korea in the war. The PRC believes it should control the South China Sea as well. Perhaps after the PRC captures Taiwan, they will say they also should get back Mongolia and Vietnam because many years ago it was within their domain. Right now, Red China is a monster that can't be appeased just like Germany in the 1930's.

Hot take: no countries are legitimate.

Depends on what you mean by the question. If it were 'should China carry on as it is?', my answer would be no, given how authoritarian the government is (see current events, Winnie the Pooh ban, national anthem laws, Peppa Pig Ban) - it could do with being more democratic, that's for sure. However, if you mean 'should China amd its people be blasted out of existence?', then it's a no from me.

Cordel One wrote:Hot take: no countries are legitimate.

Based

I don't think we should abolish China we can't just get rid of centuries of history and culture. However, I wouldn't mind replacing the CCP with a more friendlier government and one that actually treats their population right.

Aeritai wrote:I don't think we should abolish China we can't just get rid of centuries of history and culture. However, I wouldn't mind replacing the CCP with a more friendlier government and one that actually treats their population right.

Centuries of genocide, statism, authoritarianism etc? It is pretty clear what I mean by “abolition of China” which is not very different from “abolition of Prussia” by Allies. Depopulation is clearly not an option in my poll. Just like German-speakers had both the free Hanseatic tradition and the statist & militarist Prussian one, Chinese-speakers have both the commercial traditions in non-Mandarin-speaking provinces such as Guangdong, Fujian and Zhejiang as well as the centrist, statist traditions in Beijing and Xi’an. The former traditions in China nurtured the bamboo network in Southeast Asia and elsewhere as well as Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and Singapore. The latter traditions are responsible for numerous genocides, depopulations as well as the current Xi regime. China needs to be abolished just like Prussia so that Hong Kong/Guangzhou/Shanghai will never be oppressed by Beijing and its traditionalists & communists in the same sense that Hamburg needed to be freed from Berlin and the dreaded Prussian statism.

Feline Goetland wrote:As we all know, China exists. However shall it really happen? Any iteration of China in history has been a brutal entity that treats its own subjects as well as foreign peoples like shit. A typical regime change in China tends to be accompanied by a major depopulation. Moreover China historically conducted genocides that are so thorough that not enough survivors were left to condemn, let alone punish the perpetrators. Since China is so awful shall it be abolished and replaced by Korea-sized successor states that can ensure the existence of human rights and international norms?

Are you sure that regime changes in China cause the major de-population, or does major de-population lead to discontent with an existing regime or dynasty, causing its overthrow and the establishment of a new government. Furthermore, smaller independent states do not necessarily protect human rights or international norms better than large states. For example, here in the US we had southern states succeding from the union so they could maintain slavery, and well into the 20th century the federal government had to intervene against state governments to protect the civil rights of African-Americans. Meanwhile, in Europe, the European Union was formed after World War II, in part for economic reasons, but also to prevent a future European war. And now the European Union also works to uphold human rights even though authoritarians nationalists try to limit people's freedoms. So regarding China, yes, the PRC is bad, but I don't think permently balkanizing China would be the best solution.

Bienenhalde wrote:

Feline Goetland wrote:As we all know, China exists. However shall it really happen? Any iteration of China in history has been a brutal entity that treats its own subjects as well as foreign peoples like shit. A typical regime change in China tends to be accompanied by a major depopulation. Moreover China historically conducted genocides that are so thorough that not enough survivors were left to condemn, let alone punish the perpetrators. Since China is so awful shall it be abolished and replaced by Korea-sized successor states that can ensure the existence of human rights and international norms?

Are you sure that regime changes in China cause the major de-population, or does major de-population lead to discontent with an existing regime or dynasty, causing its overthrow and the establishment of a new government. Furthermore, smaller independent states do not necessarily protect human rights or international norms better than large states. For example, here in the US we had southern states succeding from the union so they could maintain slavery, and well into the 20th century the federal government had to intervene against state governments to protect the civil rights of African-Americans. Meanwhile, in Europe, the European Union was formed after World War II, in part for economic reasons, but also to prevent a future European war. And now the European Union also works to uphold human rights even though authoritarians nationalists try to limit people's freedoms. So regarding China, yes, the PRC is bad, but I don't think permently balkanizing China would be the best solution.

The latter is true.

Majority rights and minority rights are completely different issues. The latter can be harmed when populism is strong while the former can not. With the PRC there is not even majority rights. Rights of the current minority groups in PRC should be guaranteed by these states getting independent from it.

We can have a Southern Chinese Union or even East Asian Union if it is necessary to stop civil wars. I don’t think folks from my region are remotely interested in or benefit from being in the same country as Beijing and many other places. In fact we pay taxes to them without achieving representation (since it is a communist state) or even social support. These successor nations to the south of Yangtze River need to exist since our ancestors never spoke Mandarin and have our own languages hence we deserve to be independent in the same sense that Slovenia deserves to be independent from Belgrade.

I have a flag of Goetland at home. That’s going to be a First World nation as soon as we get rid of PRC and free ourselves from Sinostatism once and for all. A free Goetland should be a responsible democracy in the 21st century and a friend of Israel & Anglo nations & Japan. There is a reason why Go-on exists in Japan as something separate from Kan-on. Goetland is not China.

Feline Goetland wrote:

Smenovekhovtia wrote:*Insert 300+ years of slavery and native american genocide*

I already explained it. European countries are at least good towards Europeans of the same ethnicity. Ideally a state should be nice to everyone. If this can not be achieved at least a state should be nice towards its ruling ethnic group (and that everyone needs to get an ethnostate to ensure good treatment). China is even worse since it does not even treat its own supposed ruling ethnic group well, let alone minorities such as Uyghurs.

European states nice to their own? Soviet Russia would like a word.

Actually most of Eastern Europe would like a word

My problem isn't China itself but the CCP that exists only as a mockery of everything Communism stood for. I'd prefer that the Chinese people be spared, but if China must be brought down to protect the rest of the world's proletariat from state-capitalism, than it's a sacrifice the would need to be made. It should be made clear that any such coalition could only be formed after some kind of Strategic Defense Initiative is invented making nukes obsolete (if ever) and even then we can't just invade because the opportunity is there, the only way for an intervention to be done right and justify the massive casualty rate which would inevitable even in a non-nuclear conflict would be to wait for China to strike first on a state promised protection (Taiwan, Vietnam, etc.).

The best way of course would be for China to screw itself over in an ecological collapse but even then the government could survive perfectly content to lord over the ruins.