[Unthinking Majority]

Can further explain your choice below.

[late]

It's more complicated than the choices your survey offers.

As an aging empire, we want stability. That means helping Taiwan, at the moment. It will likely mean offering aid of some sort to India, Vietnam, or the Phillipines in the future. India is the most likely.

Businesses are already moving their business from China, to other locations. Some will be coming here, it's one of the reasons the economy is so strong. Businesses are spending billions cranking up here.

[Politics_Observer]

Western strategy towards China should focus on deterrence, and safeguarding sensitive Western technology and keeping such technology out of Chinese hands.

[Fasces]

Other: tensions are a result of Western policy in the Pacific and a desire to maintain unilateral hegemony, not Chinese aggression for the sake of Chinese aggression. What is often framed as "aggression" is simply an end of subservience created by an extreme power differential. The end of Western hegemony is inevitable as the gap introduced by colonialism slows and Western powers should strive to create an international order that isn't blatantly two tiered for their own sake. The story of China will be repeated with the rise of India or any other power. As they become more developed and more capable, and more able to protect their own interests, they will inevitably be labeled as "aggressive" too.

The difficulty here is that the use of the phrase "West" implies that the EU-US-Asian Partners have similar interests and should be united in action, which they don't.

Nonetheless, speaking broadly:

1) scale back Western (US) military actions in the Indo-Pacific and acknowledge the existence of regional powers - meaning: be more transparent with operations in waters adjacent to China to avoid accidents; work toward compromise where possible on international disputes.

2) establish partnerships with regional powers with the purpose of expanding trust. In the short term, this means: a) expanding security partnerships with China on matters of anti-terrorism and anti-piracy, including joint operations and shared intelligence; b) expand technology transfers and partnerships with Chinese companies on environmental technologies that focus on addressing climate change; c) work with China on a co-develolment plan for the Global South.

As trust builds over time through these projects, we can work toward moving toward a true rules based international order that can hopefully assuage fears on both sides.

Ultimately, anything China does is going to be framed as aggressive - especially by the US which has a pathological psychological fear of not being invincible.

[Godstud]

There was no "Other" option, so I chose #1.

I agree with @Fasces take on it, and agree that anything China does is being framed as aggressive by the USA/West.

Most of SE Asia does not view China as this terrible country. Laos is benefiting from a high speed train that China built to connect up in the future, that is planned thru Thailand. Also see ASEAN free trade agreement.

[wat0n]

You need to elaborate on what do you mean by "Chinese aggression" and who's it directed against specifically.

[Godstud]

@wat0n "Chinese aggression" is anything that the USA/West deems as "aggressive", even if it isn't. They have a narrative to sell you, after all. BUY AMERICAN!

[Unthinking Majority]

It's more complicated than the choices your survey offers.

As an aging empire, we want stability. That means helping Taiwan, at the moment. It will likely mean offering aid of some sort to India, Vietnam, or the Phillipines in the future. India is the most likely.

Businesses are already moving their business from China, to other locations. Some will be coming here, it's one of the reasons the economy is so strong. Businesses are spending billions cranking up here.

Is this what we should do then, in your opinion?

[Unthinking Majority]

Other: tensions are a result of Western policy in the Pacific and a desire to maintain unilateral hegemony, not Chinese aggression for the sake of Chinese aggression. What is often framed as "aggression" is simply an end of subservience created by an extreme power differential.

China has never been subservient to western powers, especially since after the establishment of the UN post-WWII where China was given a permanent seat on the UN Security Council along with the USSR. China has also been a nuclear power since the 1960's. Are you so sure that the US/West were the first ones to lie and cheat and undermine the rules-based order they created in the first place in good faith? Stalin and Mao weren't exactly stand-up guys, they were the ones that demanded total subservience. The Dalai Lama is still exiled in India, that murderous bastard!

All the West has really done re: China is peacefully trade with them for decades and massively enrich their population and help lift a billion and half out of poverty, and criticize them when they behave like tyrants re: human rights, which China is free to do towards the US/West as well.

The West has also helped to protect the democracies in the region from China's attempts to undermine and control them without their consent. It's not like Japan has done poorly in its post-war relationship with the US....they just trade with them and helped make them rich, as they've done with China. China is not a victim here as you try to paint it, they have benefited massively from western relations. Can you name some actions Western nations have done post Cold War to harm China internally, besides annoy them about their human rights abuses?

The difficulty here is that the use of the phrase "West" implies that the EU-US-Asian Partners have similar interests and should be united in action, which they don't.

NATO members have similar interests on security and trade.

Nonetheless, speaking broadly:

1) scale back Western (US) military actions in the Indo-Pacific and acknowledge the existence of regional powers - meaning: be more transparent with operations in waters adjacent to China to avoid accidents; work toward compromise where possible on international disputes.

The last point is fine. However, every country is sovereign under international law and has the right to willingly engage in whatever foreign relations with other countries it wants, whether economic or security partnerships. China has no inherent right whatsoever to have a say in who Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan align with. They will not ever agree on that. China has no inherent right to determine who can or can't sail through international waters, only who may encroach their coastline waters per international law.

2) establish partnerships with regional powers with the purpose of expanding trust. In the short term, this means: a) expanding security partnerships with China on matters of anti-terrorism and anti-piracy, including joint operations and shared intelligence; b) expand technology transfers and partnerships with Chinese companies on environmental technologies that focus on addressing climate change; c) work with China on a co-develolment plan for the Global South.

Yes this is good.

As trust builds over time through these projects, we can work toward moving toward a true rules based international order that can hopefully assuage fears on both sides.

This is fine.

Ultimately, anything China does is going to be framed as aggressive - especially by the US which has a pathological psychological fear of not being invincible.

Given the history of Nazi Germany and the USSR, not to mention Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan, yes the US has a pathological fear of tyrannical dictatorships with significant military strength, and for good reason.

Despite trying to trade with them in a rules-based regime, China is stealing western technology against international law and signed trade agreements. China is also covertly interfering in western elections and democratic processes by coercing and intimidating western politicians of Chinese ethnicity to do its bidding by threatening their family members back hope, and doing things like forcing Chinese international students to sign up for local elections in the west and bus them into strategic ridings using fake addresses to tilt elections to their favored candidates. This is all pretty aggressive, and you would be the first to criticize the West when they've done it. Do you expect western countries to simply sit around and do nothing, and call China a poor victim?

[Godstud]

China is also covertly interfering in western elections and democratic processes by coercing and intimidating western politicians of Chinese ethnicity to do its bidding by threatening their family members back hope, and doing things like forcing Chinese international students to sign up for local elections in the west and bus them into strategic ridings using fake addresses to tilt elections to their favored candidates.

Conspiracy Theories won't help your argument. This is the same as people claiming that the last US election was rigged.

yes the US has a pathological fear of tyrannical dictatorships with significant military strength, and for good reason.

Also because that's what it is becoming.

[Unthinking Majority]

You need to elaborate on what do you mean by "Chinese aggression" and who's it directed against specifically.

Actions directed at and within western countries by willfully breaking international law and international agreements in order to increase its own wealth and security at the expense of the West in order to further its own power agenda. So, stealing technology and IP, interfering in democratic elections, espionage, intimidating politicians and western citizens etc.

Examples in Canada:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64813182

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/electi ... -1.6765345

https://thepienews.com/news/canada-chin ... erference/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba ... -1.6090188

https://nationalpost.com/news/exclusive ... com-giants

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/ ... 023-05-14/

[Unthinking Majority]

Conspiracy Theories won't help your argument. This is the same as people claiming that the last US election was rigged.

Also because that's what it is becoming.

Please see the posts in my reply to @wat0n above for cited links. Apparently you've been living under a rock...or in Thailand.

[wat0n]

Actions directed at and within western countries by willfully breaking international law and international agreements in order to increase its own wealth and security at the expense of the West in order to further its own power agenda. So, stealing technology and IP, interfering in democratic elections, espionage, intimidating politicians and western citizens etc.

Examples in Canada:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64813182

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/electi ... -1.6765345

https://thepienews.com/news/canada-chin ... erference/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba ... -1.6090188

https://nationalpost.com/news/exclusive ... com-giants

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/ ... 023-05-14/

Then I stand somewhere between the first and second options. As in, take measures to stop IP theft, espionage, etc which may indeed bar businesses and individuals connected to the Chinese government from participating in those things. I don't think broader sanctions should be necessary.

[Fasces]

China has never been subservient to western powers

especially since after the establishment of the UN post-WWII

An arbitrary cut-off.

China was given a permanent seat on the UN Security Council along with the USSR.

Not mainland China, but sure, a good start.

Are you so sure that the US/West were the first ones to lie and cheat and undermine the rules-based order they created in the first place in good faith?

Yes. The US established a rules-based order and then declared itself above it by refusing to sign on to the treaties it promoted. It refuses to sign on to things that would limit its sovereignty or freedom of action, such as the Law of the Sea, while demanding globally that other countries do exactly that. It is hypocritical, and can't be surprised when other powers deciede to do the same. The US, as the premier hegemonic power, should take the first step in good faith of implementing an international order that constrains itself as it demands other powers be constrained.

Should the US fall behind, and other powers such as China and India rise to supplant it, they should also use their position of power to do what the US did not. If or when they don't, I will criticize them. But that's a hypothetical future.

massively enrich their population and help lift a billion and half out of poverty

This is a perfect example of the colonial mindset - the bad things developing countries do is their fault; the good is a consequence of our good will, and only as long as it benefits us as well. Countries which refuse to "be enriched" in a way compatible with "also enriching the West" find their governments sanctioned, and leaders assassinated. It is natural that there is no trust for the West's good intentions in much of the developing world.

Can you name some actions Western nations have done post Cold War to harm China internally, besides annoy them about their human rights abuses?

The US actively funds dissident groups within China with the aim of replacing the Chinese government. The House passed just last week a modified CHIPS Act that allocated $600 million specifically to USAGM to fund anti-Chinese propoganda aimed at countries willingly participating in the Belt and Road. The US spent millions financing ETIM before it joined with Al Qaeda, including training militants (Operation Cyclone).

the third reason we were there [in Afghanistan] is because there are 20 million Uyghurs [in Xinjiang]. The CIA would want to destabilize China and that would be the best way to do it to foment unrest and to join with those Uyghurs in pushing the Han Chinese in Beijing from internal places rather than external.

NATO members have similar interests on security and trade.

Not in all matters.

China has no inherent right whatsoever to have a say in who Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan align with. They will not ever agree on that. China has no inherent right to determine who can or can't sail through international waters, only who may encroach their coastline waters per international law.

Building trust isn't done in a week. China has no right to stop the US from sailing in the Taiwan Strait - nonetheless, it would be a good first step for the US to inform China of its movements of troops and ships in that area; and to give advance warning of training operations in the region.

The reverse is true - I would hope that if China chooses to start sailing PLAN vessels through the Florida-Cuba strait that it would ring ahead.

Do you expect western countries to simply sit around and do nothing, and call China a poor victim?

I have said before - the US and the West are stronger than China. The stronger state needs to take the first step, to actually build trust - if the weaker state does so, it is under a cloud of coercion. We have to take the first steps to behave better - if, once those steps have been taken, China does not reciprocate, then so be it. Do not take further steps forward. Do not, also, go back to bad behavior. This would just validate China's position and make future internal review of its decisions impossible. Xi won't be a leader forever, and sometimes we have to wait things out.

How are we defining IP theft, by the way? Obviously, outright hacking or stealing of internal documents is bad (and the West does their fair share of this, especially re: green technologies. If a company willingly gives China its IP to work in the Chinese market, is this IP theft? If former engineers of TMSC decide they want to work in China for better pay/conditions, is this IP theft? From your example on Nortel:

In Nortel’s waning days, Huawei reportedly backed a bid to keep it alive, only to ultimately walk away. And then snap up many of the bankrupt firm’s most-skilled staff.

"What people need to hear is that economic espionage caused Nortel’s failure"

That’s by no means a universally held view.

Nortel had in fact been in trouble for years, suffering huge losses when the dot.com bubble burst, never recovering from that disaster and making widely criticized management decisions during its final years.

In a major study into the reasons behind the company’s demise, Calof and colleagues at his university’s Telfer School of Management did not even mention the hacking or other espionage. Despite its stellar reputation for developing cutting-edge technology, customers eventually just weren’t buying what it had to sell, he said.

“They lost sales not because of technology copying, not because of inferior technology, they lost because the customers lost faith in them,” says Calof. “They did not believe that Nortel would be alive in 10 years.”

These days, many thought leaders living in the West are graduates from Chinese universities and Chinese education. A look at many of Tesla's patents reveal Chinese engineers who used to work in the Chinese battery market, and are now working at Tesla. Are these resulting patents the result of IP theft?

[Rugoz]

AFAIK, the second choice is already implemented in many ways. For example when it comes to the Chinese takeover of domestic companies. Let's not forget that China is super restrictive at home in that regard.

But more importantly, don't be naive and stupid like the pro-China shills on Pofo want the West to be.

The West was perfectly fine with fueling the rise of China, because it was good business and because the West believed economic liberalization would inevitably be followed by social and political liberalization. It was a case of post cold war hubris.

[Rich]

The West was perfectly fine with fueling the rise of China, because it was good business and because the West believed economic liberalization would inevitably be followed by social and political liberalization. It was a case of post cold war hubris.

The problem is the International Liberal lie machine's continual attempt to paint the Soviet Union as a Russian Nationalist project, as something imposed by the Russians on its ethic minorities.

This blinded the West to the difference between the Soviet Union and the other Communist States, which had an explicit element of nationalism from their inception. The Soviet Union hindered the development of Russian Nationalism till its dying breath. Lenin sought the defeat of Russia in World War I. He entered Russia in 1917, his pockets stuffed with German Gold, with the express purpose of bringing down the Russian empire. Mao claimed to be the most ferocious opponent of japan, the most aggressive supporter of the War, despite China's history of imperialist domination being far older and far crueler than Russia's.

[late]

Is this what we should do then, in your opinion?

It's what we are doing.

If I had a time machine and persuade America not to elect Trump, we might be in a very different place. Then again, maybe not.

[late]

The problem is the International Liberal lie machine's continual attempt to paint the Soviet Union as a Russian Nationalist project, as something imposed by the Russians on its ethic minorities.

That's nuts.

[Godstud]

@late It is quite possible that if Trump won in 2020 that USA would not be supporting this war. If that would be good or bad is up to supposition, of course. A "what if" scenario.

[late]

@late It is quite possible that if Trump won in 2020 that USA would not be supporting this war. If that would be good or bad is up to supposition, of course. A "what if" scenario.

He is subservient to Putin, and is entirely too willing to screw Ukraine. So I see that as a certainty.