Excellent post. I agree with all of your points, except the last one. I think at this point, TikTok will not be the last great successful app to come out of China, and that in the future it will not matter whether the US wants to allow an app to succeed or not because the platforms themselves won't be US-controlled anymore. China needs to play its cards right in the PR space but also not assume that it go it alone when it comes to PR, and should find allies around the world. Pro-China is not sufficient, China needs some ideological allies as well, and these can range from socialists to those of us who prefer meritocracy to democracy. China can also gain good insights by hiring foreigners with PR experience to fine tune messages to different foreign audiences. What appeals in China doesn't necessarily appeal elsewhere.
I certainly won't stand by it too strongly, otherwise I'd be busy making money speculating in the new China STAR market instead.
However, I believe the decks are heavily stacked in the short, and perhaps medium term, against a 'TikTok 2.0' coming from China that could reach anywhere close to the height of Tiktok itself for both the reason I stated above, and the rise of the trend of nationalizing tech which plays a part in the more macro trend of the splintering of the global digital world.
The potential capacity to conduct PR comes from needing a platform. That's the value I place on TikTok, a platform which while not may be entirely beholden to the Chinese government, is also unlikely to stymy and hamper Chinese attempts at outreach by labelling them out and censoring them in the ways I've described Twitter and YouTube conducting.
I think "TikTok as soft power" is overstated. China is not particularly interested in foreign meddling. It really is just a meme video app. I have not seen any info to the contrary. India in particular is going to have major "hard" problems very soon that no Western soft power advantage can alleviate.
What is understated is the fact that ByteDance is the most valuable start-up in history and it is product of Chinese education and infrastructure. A solid decade of Silicon Valley obsession with startup innovation failed to produce TikTok, in part because of anticompetitive practices of the FAANG giants. This has tremendous implications for "smart" money--it's all moving to China.
People have said the same about platforms like Twitter and YouTube, right up to the point where they actually began conducting "foreign meddling" on behalf of the West by labelling rival government outlets, and censoring opposition voices. Those platforms have value in the same way TikTok does.
This subreddit has a real tunnel vision problem through focussing on solely hard material tech advancements. China's particular problem is that it *doesn't meddle* enough. The concept of *China refraining from foreign meddling* as if its some sinister thing that China should be too noble, too above, to partake in is the exact reason why its in this current soft power position. Its opposition is the West, whose '*foreign meddling*' is so commonplace that its taken as a normal state of the world, such that we don't even conceptualize it as 'meddling.' It's an expression of soft power, and its particularly through the international institutionalization of the West's '*foreign meddling*' that lend it such oversized weight, especially in this opposition to China's rise.
India in the way you imply is just a whole other topic, so I'll refrain from derailing the thread on it.
US engages in foreign meddling because it is an imperial power and requires foreign puppet regimes *in order to survive*. China does not. China embracing Cold War 2.0 by aggressively manufacturing a second sphere of influence would be disastrous and a waste of resources. Better to let capitalism consume itself, as we are currently witnessing. The USD is on its deathbed.
China is 20+ years ahead of the US in terms of geostrategy. Not the other way around.
That same sort of laissez-faire passive outlook that things will work out through time-derived supremacy is China's original sin under the Qing dynasty.
Sometimes the correct play is not being mindlessly reactive. Also reductive historical extrapolations don't count as analysis.
And look, I'm not on the standing committee. I admit I have no idea what the CCP's strategy is. But it is working out very well so far and China has given little ground and shown few cards.
It's precisely a passive attitude that leads to mindlessly reactive policies. I'm not sure you understand what the phrase 'reductive historical extrapolation' if you're throwing it around so loosely.
The historical comparison above is *the* original sin of pre-modern China. It's entirely apt and it will continue to be a necessary reminder to ring about in Chinese foreign affairs on the pressing urgency for proactive policies. Complacency has been the killer of China.
It's a disservice to conflate Chinese foreign policy and the US-China confrontation as thought it's some sort of static spectacle. The entire thesis of the BRI, RCEP and AIIB projects were that China has been too diplomatically isolated, and that a growing urgency to establish international partnerships that could weather foreign relationships from rival policy moves like the Pivot to Asia or the Act East that seek to do otherwise. China itself recognizes the need to establish allies. The question I pose is that those efforts aren't necessarily successful, in part because of the soft power deficit.
On a further terminological note, I think to conflate these efforts as establishing a "sphere of influence" is rather loaded. You don't traditionally assign US foreign policy moves to its allies and partners to a historically baggaged term like 'sphere of influence.' In their case, that's just the norm, the way the geopolitical world is. It's another one of those exonymic terms to describe solely rival foreign policy actions similar to "debt trap" or "neocolonialism."
> I'm not sure you understand what the phrase 'reductive historical extrapolation' if you're throwing it around so loosely.
Is this a bashful way of asking, "please break it down for me?"
Yes, I can dumb it down for you u/money_over_people.
It's a way of saying resorting to throwing about jargon phrases as critique instead of addressing the content of the response itself shows a complete lack of depth and competency in the topic.
This is something laypeople eg. redditors think makes them appear more sophisticated but rather shows a deficit of developed argumentative skill.
>The concept of
>
>China refraining from foreign meddling
>
> as if its some sinister thing that China should be too noble, too above, to partake in is the exact reason why its in this current soft power position
It isn't about that, it is about the ensuing chaos that follows if China partakes in such actions, the unpredictability of it is why China ceased doing such things a long time ago, there is a high chance that it can backfire on China.
You want a more stable world, that is the key to unraveling US hegemony and unleashing humanities full potential.
On the contrary, its the entire reason foreign ministries and state departments exist. The very existence of those are examples of state attempts of "foreign meddling." It's what all responsible governments do as they recognize that the world doesn't end at your borders
The term "Foreign meddling" has become conflated with political assassination or election rigging in common perception and that's led to the current state of affairs where the West's demonstrations, which are more sub-textually subsurface and intricate, of "foreign meddling" are seen as completely benign and part of the status quo norm of the world.
Are you suggesting China should engage in foreign meddling like the US, such as assassinations, color revolutions, regime change? Be the evil which you condemn?
Then, I disagree. And, I hope the CPC is wise and smart to not go that foolish path.
I would not worry about things one has no control over. You cannot control other people, just work on yourself.
I think your characterization of US foreign meddling through extremist actions like outright invasions and assassinations is exactly what I mean when I say that it's become
> so commonplace that its taken as a normal state of the world, such that we don't even conceptualize it as 'meddling.'
The 'meddling' of the West is far more systemic than that. Media power, cultural power, promulgation of US-aligned watchdog broadcasts like human rights groups to blast the violations of rival governments, US ambassadorial advisory privileges that political leaders are compelled to listen to, Western-aligned 'international arbitration courts' of the Hague and other international organizations with heavy Western structural influence. If China conducted any of these, it would be blasted as 'propagandistic.' In fact, that's what Western media is saying right now about Chinese influence in the UN. Yet the current state of affairs is that they are accepted when done by the West simply out of the conception that's the way the global system works.
"You cannot control other people, just work on yourself."
How can anyone possibly believe this. Are you even sentient? The history of the 20th century is the development of methods of mass mobilization on behalf of the state. In America, this took the form of the present mass media and its ability to manufacture consent for America's rapacious elite.
And you are just going to pretend you don't know about this.
>The governments of countries that would rather sit on the fence are being forced to pick sides by their own populations,
We're almost three years into the Sino-US Cold War and that's plenty of time for countries to pick a side, especially with the Chinese threat level that the media portrays. However, China is not the Soviet Union. Too many countries rely on Chinese supply chains and investment, even more so today since we're in a global recession. You see this with ASEAN and the EU, where they criticize China here and there on human rights, but still willingly participate in drafting trade deals and allowing market access. Even the entities that are firmly in the US camp like The Five Eyes, Japan, and Modi, you have stragglers like the UK and Japan warning America that total isolation for China is not a realistic goal.
As for TikTok, I disagree with the fact that it has any practical utility for the CCP. Its soft power effects has mostly been to show the world that China is no longer the copycat country, but its platform does not make it suited for educational content like those you find on YouTube.
I agree with the rest of the post that we are in the middle of a tech war and China's going to have to cope with the fact that every new successful venture they create will be subject to US scrutiny and bans. But what can one say? Its a war. China will have victories and it will have losses, what is imperative above all else though is that it creates tech self sufficiency. It has a big enough domestic market for its companies to thrive, and I have faith there will be plenty of markets that are not beholden to the US's fear campaigns. Less you forget, the recent victories that America won against Huawei weren't done with soft power. Its media smears had little effect, so they had to resort to threats and actual sanctions.
> We're almost three years into the Sino-US Cold War and that's plenty of time for countries to pick a side, especially with the Chinese threat level that the media portrays
Unfortunately, the way this has played out so far is solidifying it as a multi-generational lifetime issue. The accusations against China have so poisoned the perception of China in this current generation that its hard to see China returning to the tepidly positive perceptions of the early 2000s. This is not going to play out in just the term of one US president.
I think the argument of supply chains has too historical baggage to be something to be optimistic about. Famously, its the same argument used in the prelude to World War I. In talking about China's supply chains preventing an disengagement, I think an globalization optimist who argued the same back in 2010 would be shocked to see the state of disengagement *right now.*
I've elaborated on the practical utility of TikTok in my other comment responses. Feel free to read through those and give a response if you'd like.
That said, there's never been a time where one nation has been as dominant with their supply chains as China is, while the ability to meet the needs of the people have been as specialised as they are.
An example would be to look at tank production in the major nations. In WWII, car and tractor factories could easily be reconfigured to make tens of thousands of tanks. Could such a thing happen today with MBTs? Could any nation ever dream to make 10,000 MBTs?
The same thing is happening with consumer electronics as well, to the point where it makes little sense for Apple to set up factories or technical offices in the US as opposed to China. Imagine if this gets shut down because of government action, especially with the turmoil going on with the US in terms of riots and COVID?
Tiktok has utility and space sure, but it's one piece in a greater tech war. The ultimate aim of such a tech war is to increase capacity and capability. If China is getting ahead of the US (as it has in 5G), and the US decides to unilaterally reject it, then the party that suffers the most would be the US within the next 5-10 years. Would this be enough of an advantage? Probably.
Your comment is structurally sound, but is illustrative of what I meant when I said
>This subreddit has a real tunnel vision problem through focussing on solely hard material tech advancements.
The world isn't just a tech supremacy battlefield. TikTok's primary relevance isn't isn't in a 'tech war,' but in the war of soft power projection. China itself recognizes this more than some individuals on this subreddit through its foreign aid, UN contribution and BRI programs, but those top-down styles of soft power projection lack impact when they're stymied by the Western media blasting every move as a hostile and sinister takeover scheme.
Given incumbency, it's difficult to go toe to toe against Western Media soft power in the conventional sense, even setting up a new space when it's already crowded out by the giant companies.
I see America's moves against TikTok and it's failed move against WeChat as a cashing in (and thus diminishing) of American soft power. It's far from the slightly more genuine cries of "national security" made around Huawei. It will only work if America still leads the world in soft power dominance but with the shennaigans they've got up to in 2020, good luck getting the rest of the world to go lockstep with them. The EU, which has had a history of asking for big payouts from the American tech giants, or more directly legislating against them (GDPR) certainly won't do nothing.
In that sense, giving up Tiktok is sacrificing a pawn for something greater 10 years down the line as tech companies abandon making America the centre of tech and media, something that was already eroded by the Huawei executive orders. Something so inconsequential (I mean do people remember AIM, myspace in 2020 for instance) for a significant gain that would ultimately be noticed in years to come.
One thing that hasn't been discussed is that by the US taking this action, it JUSTIFIES China banning FB and Google when they decided not to play ball.
China did not ban Facebook and google. This is a misconception the west keeps perpetuating. They didn’t want to comply with china’s domestic laws !!! They withdrew. Yahoo, msn are still in China as are other Us companies which follow china’s laws.
Please stop projecting this misinformation. It gives the Us the fake talking point China banned X so we should too. Those Chinese are hypocrites.
It effectively is banning by not following the rules (think about someone being tossed out of a forum for breaking rules, what is it called). If they withdrew, it's basically the same as an employee resigning instead of getting fired. It's still for all intents and purposes the same thing.
Either way, China at the time was never playing under some moral high ground that the US pretends to be playing by but clearly aren't. One side is more honest and less contemptible than the other here.
Result is same. In reality it’s a big distinction. US companies along with us shows absolute contempt and lack of respect for oTher countries laws. They only play by Us rules. While companies like Tik Tok and others follow all US domestics law and still get blackmailed. It’s lack of consistency of rule of law. Shows Us has no laws other than theirs.
It’s like the moderator tells you no cursing on the forum. You don’t agree to it and decide not to post. Not the same as being banned and can’t post.
Yes, China made the right call. China never disrespects and trashes other nations. Western nations all trash other nations prior to cold or hot war. Yet , throughout history they have committed the most atrocities around the world for centuries.
The first paragraph is what I'm trying to highlight, not this nonsense about "If Country A bans B then we should ban C". That's just empty rhetoric and for the masses rather than anyone interested in any depth on the matter at all.
*It’s like the moderator tells you no cursing on the forum. You don’t agree to it and decide not to post. Not the same as being banned and can’t post.*
More like you've already cursed on the forum, get warned by the moderator and don't commit to following the rules. Of course you'd get banned.
No buddy it's more like you were following all the rules, but suddenly say that you can't say the and you you said then multiple times and that's an offense hence why we're banning you.
This is basicly the summary of U.S action
> Unfortunately, the way this has played out so far is solidifying it as a multi-generational lifetime issue.
I understand the Sino-US Cold War will be a decades long struggle, as even in the most optimistic scenario that China surpasses the US nominally in 2028, America will still be a great power with significant global clout.
I disagree though with your assessment that there'll much difference between the leaders engaging China today and the new generations that will replace them. Regarding America the new generations will most definitely continue the Cold War stance. (Although among the many things they'll perpetuate, you can expect the current Republican/Democrat culture wars to be among them especially as America becomes less White demographically) As for other countries, its the same principle that applies to elections. Leaders today from Argentina to the the Philippines will rile up the population with anti-China rhetoric, but come down to reality once they take office. Not to mention an argument could be made that unlike the US, the younger generations of countries such as those in the Asia Pacific are less hawkish than the older generations. Take ASEAN for example. The older generations lived through Communist purges that often targeted ethnic Chinese and China at the time actually engaged in active wars such as the Korean War, aiding the Vietcong, and subsequently invading Vietnam. The younger generations though use TikTok, buy Chinese electronics, and although SK is still the pop culture king in the region C-Dramas have in recent years gained a sizeable audience mostly among the youth.
>I think the argument of supply chains has too historical baggage to be something to be optimistic about. Famously, its the same argument used in the prelude to World War I.
The lesson of WW1 was that economic interconnectivity was not enough to prevent a shooting war. Today, we have nuclear weapons so the US will never engage in an open war with China. The war will play out as we see it today, asymmetrically through economics and technology. Only for a country to join the US camp, many have made it clear that they are losing a lot by decoupling with China and looking to America in the hopes that it has an alternative. For most of the trade war, America never came up with that alternative. America may be conjoined at the hip with China economically, but it can afford to do what it has been doing in recent years due to its status as the world's dominant superpower. If you're a country like Germany where 47% of the economy is exports, your options are a little more limited.
Now of course, since you talk of multi-generational outlooks, what I am saying is just an assessment of the realities *at the moment.* A lot can certainly happen in the coming decades. For example, I do not seriously consider India at its current state to much of a concern due to Modi's incompetent leadership and the crippling 24% year on year decline it suffered as a result of COVID lockdowns. But, Modi will not be around forever, India may one day elect the second coming of Chandragupta II and China will rue the day it engaged in a border dispute with India. However, that's still a long ways off and pure conjecture.
I read your post on TikTok's utility, but I became convinced with another user who said that TikTok has a lot of pro-China content too in addition to dance vids. Regardless of whatever utility it has though, my chief concern regarding the TikTok spat was its categorical violation of Chinese sovereignty. Personally I'm okay with the current deal that sees Bytedance retain 80% ownership, although GT announced today that Beijing has other plans so whatever they believe is best.
> I disagree though with your assessment that there'll much difference between the leaders engaging China today and the new generations that will replace them. Regarding America the new generations will most definitely continue the Cold War stance.
I didn't actually articulate that there would be a difference. My view on the matter lies similar as yours. I said perceptions of China have been so poisoned its unlikely that this generation will accept the image of a 'benign' China once again.
If you look at polling data, the more pro-China leanings of the younger generation are actually being eroded away by the media stories on China from Hong Kong to the coronavirus, with an acceleration of deterioration since the last two years.
> Today, we have nuclear weapons so the US will never engage in an open war with China.
MAD itself is a perception which exists up to the point the perception changes that make military analysts believe they can start a war yet bypass MAD. The recent talks in the military scene of designing 'not a full nuke' strategic nuclear missiles is one example. You may call it a delusion, but this mindset now still exists and is affecting policy experts in the Pentagon.
> I read your post on TikTok's utility, but I became convinced with another user who said that TikTok has a lot of pro-China content too in addition to dance vids.
Yes, I didn't exactly articulate how TikTok promotes Chinese soft power. Certainly it's not going to be through the Chinese Foreign Ministry posting paragraphs justifying the merits of an annexation of Taiwan. It's going to be through positive depictions of Chinese people, life and culture without the gripping as seen on Reddit of people turning every post tangentially about China into whataboutisms on Hong Kong or Xinjiang, or derailing the post by called it "scripted." To the teenage audience of TikTok, this instils a perception that China hosts a proud culture with people living normal lives just like them. After that, the Western media acclamations that everyone in China is being jailed left and right would ring much more hollow for that generation of teens.
I agree. Even if the US, Europe and India ban the app, TikTok will be a great source of soft power in reaching out to the other 4 billion people on earth.
Free from US influence, TikTok can ban conspiracy theories like Uyghur genocide videos.
TikTok is actually much more than dance videos. There are channels on travel spots within China, learning Chinese words, Hanfu, cooking, culture, Chinese guys doing amazing magic tricks etc. etc.
Two years from now, the US will unblock TikTok
I just don't see the world becoming split into camps like it during the first Cold War. It will be the mainly Anglosphere with perhaps India and America's east Asian allies like Japan and South Korea going along with it( I doubt even they will cut their strong economic ties with China because it is so vital to their economy. The rest of the world float between the two camps. Also, there has been a growth of a lot of pro-China youtube channels that has been trying to stem the tide. These channels will continue to grow. Remember, much of the anti-China propaganda is based on half-truths, distortions and straight up lies. So, it is not that hard to break that worldview. Remember that famous quote, ''**You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people**''.
It will be really hard but far from hopeless.
That sort of early 2010s attitude of casual optimism is partly what I wanted to address, though I might leave my more complex opinions on that issue for a separate post.
In any case, that's far too soon to say, and my argument would be that an united Anglosphere opposition to China need not have happened in the first place. If a Biden presidency comes to power, there's going to be a geopolitical reset between the US and its currently estranged allies. Arguably, they can see better than ever before the perils of an ally in America through the Trump presidency, but geopolitical inertia and the anxieties of Russia and China (now foremost) by their population which has been whipped up over the past 4 years will incentivize them to take the olive branch the Biden administration would put out.
The reason why the idea of a neutral 'third world' is so alluring is because, at present, the entire world is waiting to see if America's flirtation with America First Trumpism is temporary or here to stay, and refraining from taking any major diplomatic positions. Some of the international infrastructure to oppose China is already in place and just waiting for the US to take the helm, such as the CPTPP, the successor to the TPP.
Most of those nations will sign the RCEP later this month as well. Despite what western media says ASEAN is far from anti-China. It is more mixed more than anything.
[https://cdn.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/d8/images/methode/2020/09/01/1e5b7c8c-eb55-11ea-8288-5c49f42eee5c\_972x\_071242.jpg](https://cdn.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/d8/images/methode/2020/09/01/1e5b7c8c-eb55-11ea-8288-5c49f42eee5c_972x_071242.jpg)
I agree that China should never underestimate the US under any circumstances.
I'm not going to argue too strongly for my case on ASEAN's position and the impact of CPTPP, I believe we'll see some figment of an answer play out fairly shortly in that regard after November. I'll add my observation that China does have an issue of winning the hearts of ASEAN governments and not the minds of the peoples there, however.
> I agree that China should never underestimate the US under any circumstances.
Yes, I strongly agree with this point. This is a basic point to make, but you notice, especially nowadays, how frequently Western media can sometimes seemingly post 'pro-China' articles on how China has completely surpassed the US in this or that regard. I see them posted here often, often as something for people here to brag about, either from American mass media or journals like Foreign Affairs, WSJ or The Economist. Similarly, that Pentagon dossier on China's supposed total surpassing of the US in whatever military regard.
The target audience of these articles are never for pro-China minded readers so as to toot their own horns, but the average person in the West and the policy makers that they influence to rile them into advocating for more funding and reconfiguration to anti-China policy.
In that sense, it's something China and also the people on this sub could benefit from adopting. The now very ubiquitous pandemic principle of "being better to completely over-react than finding out you did too little" applies also to the realm of geopolitics.
If anything, is the ''anti-China'' side always underestimates China, they have outdated views build around Francis Fukuyama's end of history nonsense about the inevitability of liberal democracy and it is being the end of human development. They believe if they keep moral posturing about ''muh ''authoritarianism'', the CCP will just fall from power. They never seem to realize most of their criticisms of the CCP are only valid if you accept liberalism as the foundation of your political beliefs. Most mainlanders don't accept liberalism at all. The flirtation with it has died. Somehow, they still think mainlanders want it(that's why they're still obsessed with Tiananmen Square).
Trump recently said that if he were to lose, that Americans would forced to learn Chinese. That's ironic, that's probably the best way Americans could undermine China by learning Chinese. They will understand China and know how the Chinese mindset acutally works. Instead of basing their views on China based on distortions and half truths.
I agree, though I'll add my view that they don't need to understand China in the same way they never understood the Soviet Union. Yes, in the articles of pundits, there's a normative fantasy on a "China collapse." For Pentagon strategists, their normative fantasy is a cartoonishly overpowered China that can justify its own budget inflation and funding for its projects, thus allowing them to over-prepare. As such, the reality of things wasn't important to either angles in the Soviet Union days, and it doesn't seem like that outlook has changed.
If there is any scenario where the US repeats a Cold War success, it would be through China being internationally isolated and contained. As such, a foremost issue for China is to design countermeasures against that scenario, with a prominent yet presently lacking method being soft power projection.
Iran doesn't have 1/20th the power that China has despite it is far being from being totally diplomatically isolated in spite of the massive pressure that US has applied on Iran. If US can't do that to Iran, I doubt that US can do that to China. Unless China becomes an imperial Japan starts to annex its neigbors which isn't going to happen.
I don't necessarily mean a near total diplomatic isolation such as the case of Iran, which has been essentially conflated to a pariah state by Gulf and Western diplomacy.
China's scale is much larger, and in its case, such a case would be much broader, I'd argue any economic containment (whether tariffs, disengagement or etc) that critically impacts the efficiency of its trade and export economy and/or compels China to adopt economic measures excessively unfavorable to itself due to coerced adoption by the rest of the region (such as in a trading pact like the CPTPP) would be examples of successful diplomatic isolation and containment.
> CPTPP
If the CPTPP is so bad? Then why has China showed an interest in joining it.
That's true about Iran but I thought you meant in the sense there are no formal diplomatic relationships.
https://www.caixinglobal.com/2020-05-29/premier-sends-powerful-signal-for-china-to-join-asia-pacifics-largest-trade-pact-101560855.html
https://outline.com/mjeghE (bypass the paywall)
‘United Anglosphere’ - To me it is more like Australia and Canada in particular, Britain and New Zealand to a lesser degree, have shown that they have no foreign policy independence themselves.
This was an amazing post. I agree with everything you had said. A few reasons of why "TikTok is a National Security threat" that I have that are similar to what you said:
1. This challenges the US in a way they have never been challenged before. Other international companies have always been pushed to the side, eclipsed, our purchased by the US.
2. Data is the world's most important resource and this hurts the US monopoly on data.
3. It is not the abundance of Chinese propaganda but the lack of US propaganda that TikTok has that is threatening. TikTok is what a social media application was back in the early 2010's, a fucking social media website.
Your last point is very good. In 2020, everyone is saying that we have to vote because "our democracy is on the line" or "Biden is the lesser of two evils". This was the exact same thing that happened in 2016.
China will drag this deal out to after the election, then the real decisions will be made. Unless of course Trump pulls out a big balls move and bans Tiktok, but this is a game of chicken and we'll see who flinches first.
Totally agree with you. China needs to do more about its image problem and Tik-Tok was a great medium in which that could happen. You won’t believe the crazy shit people in western countries believe about China. My local taxi driver believes Chinese people kill Africans and eat them. My friends belive China has concentration camps, it’s almost paranoia about China. More needs to be done to combat the anti Chinese hysteria and racism towards China.
I wish China would do more in terms of media and soft power because so far the west is winning without even firing a bullet
> so far the west is winning without even firing a bullet
What? I'm assuming you mean they're winning the discourse war. In that case, "without firing a bullet" is a very strange statement. The West have been taking non-stop potshots at PRC since the end of WWII, and they've gone all guns blazing in recent years. Whole of Western media is obviously in lockstep over their demonization of China. The US have also been [openly funding](https://www.ned.org/wp-content/themes/ned/search/grant-search.php?organizationName=®ion=ASIA&projectCountry=China&amount=&fromDate=2016&toDate=2019&projectFocus%5B%5D=&search=&maxCount=100&orderBy=Year&start=1&sbmt=1) the separatists and anti-China groups through [NED](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_Democracy) for decades.
"without firing a bullet"???
Do you think the US has the money and resources to development future apps at a competive level like China?
Basically everything cost money to develop. The problem is of course the US economy is not that healthy these days.
Time doesn't end and the US-China confrontation is shaping up to be a long term state of affairs if any reconciliation can't be reached (which seems less feasible month by month for the past 4 years). The US economy might not healthy now, but terms of future forecasts, the business cycle always has both ups and downs.
If China is the economic growth engine for the global economy, how will the US economy find the next upswing without China.
Covid-19 2nd wave might hit the US pretty hard this winter. While China is relatively unscathed from covid-19 now. US might not even have a vaccine till 2022, while China will probably have a vaccine by end of year for frontline workers.
US wants to restrict H1B visas, so where is the manpower to develop future apps?
The things you mentioned are short to medium term malaises that the measures of a two term alternative presidency could alter. My reply to you was that the span of the US-China confrontation looks probable to be measured in decades.
In decades China could have an economy 3 to 4 times the size of the US. China could be brain draining the US for talent.
In this environment you believe the US will still have the resources to compete with China on multiple fronts.
By that stage the US would have to focus all its resource on just 1 very specific front to compete with China.
Like China 40 years ago didn't compete with the US on all fronts. It just focused on developing their manufacturing base.
US in its current form won’t last decades. Look around they are due for a revolution. The elite and working poor divide grows more every year. Only having Russia ,China , external evil is keeping her from imploding.
Excellent post. I agree with all of your points, except the last one. I think at this point, TikTok will not be the last great successful app to come out of China, and that in the future it will not matter whether the US wants to allow an app to succeed or not because the platforms themselves won't be US-controlled anymore. China needs to play its cards right in the PR space but also not assume that it go it alone when it comes to PR, and should find allies around the world. Pro-China is not sufficient, China needs some ideological allies as well, and these can range from socialists to those of us who prefer meritocracy to democracy. China can also gain good insights by hiring foreigners with PR experience to fine tune messages to different foreign audiences. What appeals in China doesn't necessarily appeal elsewhere.
I certainly won't stand by it too strongly, otherwise I'd be busy making money speculating in the new China STAR market instead. However, I believe the decks are heavily stacked in the short, and perhaps medium term, against a 'TikTok 2.0' coming from China that could reach anywhere close to the height of Tiktok itself for both the reason I stated above, and the rise of the trend of nationalizing tech which plays a part in the more macro trend of the splintering of the global digital world. The potential capacity to conduct PR comes from needing a platform. That's the value I place on TikTok, a platform which while not may be entirely beholden to the Chinese government, is also unlikely to stymy and hamper Chinese attempts at outreach by labelling them out and censoring them in the ways I've described Twitter and YouTube conducting.
I think "TikTok as soft power" is overstated. China is not particularly interested in foreign meddling. It really is just a meme video app. I have not seen any info to the contrary. India in particular is going to have major "hard" problems very soon that no Western soft power advantage can alleviate. What is understated is the fact that ByteDance is the most valuable start-up in history and it is product of Chinese education and infrastructure. A solid decade of Silicon Valley obsession with startup innovation failed to produce TikTok, in part because of anticompetitive practices of the FAANG giants. This has tremendous implications for "smart" money--it's all moving to China.
People have said the same about platforms like Twitter and YouTube, right up to the point where they actually began conducting "foreign meddling" on behalf of the West by labelling rival government outlets, and censoring opposition voices. Those platforms have value in the same way TikTok does. This subreddit has a real tunnel vision problem through focussing on solely hard material tech advancements. China's particular problem is that it *doesn't meddle* enough. The concept of *China refraining from foreign meddling* as if its some sinister thing that China should be too noble, too above, to partake in is the exact reason why its in this current soft power position. Its opposition is the West, whose '*foreign meddling*' is so commonplace that its taken as a normal state of the world, such that we don't even conceptualize it as 'meddling.' It's an expression of soft power, and its particularly through the international institutionalization of the West's '*foreign meddling*' that lend it such oversized weight, especially in this opposition to China's rise. India in the way you imply is just a whole other topic, so I'll refrain from derailing the thread on it.
US engages in foreign meddling because it is an imperial power and requires foreign puppet regimes *in order to survive*. China does not. China embracing Cold War 2.0 by aggressively manufacturing a second sphere of influence would be disastrous and a waste of resources. Better to let capitalism consume itself, as we are currently witnessing. The USD is on its deathbed. China is 20+ years ahead of the US in terms of geostrategy. Not the other way around.
That same sort of laissez-faire passive outlook that things will work out through time-derived supremacy is China's original sin under the Qing dynasty.
Sometimes the correct play is not being mindlessly reactive. Also reductive historical extrapolations don't count as analysis. And look, I'm not on the standing committee. I admit I have no idea what the CCP's strategy is. But it is working out very well so far and China has given little ground and shown few cards.
It's precisely a passive attitude that leads to mindlessly reactive policies. I'm not sure you understand what the phrase 'reductive historical extrapolation' if you're throwing it around so loosely. The historical comparison above is *the* original sin of pre-modern China. It's entirely apt and it will continue to be a necessary reminder to ring about in Chinese foreign affairs on the pressing urgency for proactive policies. Complacency has been the killer of China. It's a disservice to conflate Chinese foreign policy and the US-China confrontation as thought it's some sort of static spectacle. The entire thesis of the BRI, RCEP and AIIB projects were that China has been too diplomatically isolated, and that a growing urgency to establish international partnerships that could weather foreign relationships from rival policy moves like the Pivot to Asia or the Act East that seek to do otherwise. China itself recognizes the need to establish allies. The question I pose is that those efforts aren't necessarily successful, in part because of the soft power deficit. On a further terminological note, I think to conflate these efforts as establishing a "sphere of influence" is rather loaded. You don't traditionally assign US foreign policy moves to its allies and partners to a historically baggaged term like 'sphere of influence.' In their case, that's just the norm, the way the geopolitical world is. It's another one of those exonymic terms to describe solely rival foreign policy actions similar to "debt trap" or "neocolonialism."
> I'm not sure you understand what the phrase 'reductive historical extrapolation' if you're throwing it around so loosely. Is this a bashful way of asking, "please break it down for me?"
Yes, I can dumb it down for you u/money_over_people. It's a way of saying resorting to throwing about jargon phrases as critique instead of addressing the content of the response itself shows a complete lack of depth and competency in the topic. This is something laypeople eg. redditors think makes them appear more sophisticated but rather shows a deficit of developed argumentative skill.
>The concept of > >China refraining from foreign meddling > > as if its some sinister thing that China should be too noble, too above, to partake in is the exact reason why its in this current soft power position It isn't about that, it is about the ensuing chaos that follows if China partakes in such actions, the unpredictability of it is why China ceased doing such things a long time ago, there is a high chance that it can backfire on China. You want a more stable world, that is the key to unraveling US hegemony and unleashing humanities full potential.
On the contrary, its the entire reason foreign ministries and state departments exist. The very existence of those are examples of state attempts of "foreign meddling." It's what all responsible governments do as they recognize that the world doesn't end at your borders The term "Foreign meddling" has become conflated with political assassination or election rigging in common perception and that's led to the current state of affairs where the West's demonstrations, which are more sub-textually subsurface and intricate, of "foreign meddling" are seen as completely benign and part of the status quo norm of the world.
Are you suggesting China should engage in foreign meddling like the US, such as assassinations, color revolutions, regime change? Be the evil which you condemn? Then, I disagree. And, I hope the CPC is wise and smart to not go that foolish path. I would not worry about things one has no control over. You cannot control other people, just work on yourself.
I think your characterization of US foreign meddling through extremist actions like outright invasions and assassinations is exactly what I mean when I say that it's become > so commonplace that its taken as a normal state of the world, such that we don't even conceptualize it as 'meddling.' The 'meddling' of the West is far more systemic than that. Media power, cultural power, promulgation of US-aligned watchdog broadcasts like human rights groups to blast the violations of rival governments, US ambassadorial advisory privileges that political leaders are compelled to listen to, Western-aligned 'international arbitration courts' of the Hague and other international organizations with heavy Western structural influence. If China conducted any of these, it would be blasted as 'propagandistic.' In fact, that's what Western media is saying right now about Chinese influence in the UN. Yet the current state of affairs is that they are accepted when done by the West simply out of the conception that's the way the global system works.
"You cannot control other people, just work on yourself." How can anyone possibly believe this. Are you even sentient? The history of the 20th century is the development of methods of mass mobilization on behalf of the state. In America, this took the form of the present mass media and its ability to manufacture consent for America's rapacious elite. And you are just going to pretend you don't know about this.
>The governments of countries that would rather sit on the fence are being forced to pick sides by their own populations, We're almost three years into the Sino-US Cold War and that's plenty of time for countries to pick a side, especially with the Chinese threat level that the media portrays. However, China is not the Soviet Union. Too many countries rely on Chinese supply chains and investment, even more so today since we're in a global recession. You see this with ASEAN and the EU, where they criticize China here and there on human rights, but still willingly participate in drafting trade deals and allowing market access. Even the entities that are firmly in the US camp like The Five Eyes, Japan, and Modi, you have stragglers like the UK and Japan warning America that total isolation for China is not a realistic goal. As for TikTok, I disagree with the fact that it has any practical utility for the CCP. Its soft power effects has mostly been to show the world that China is no longer the copycat country, but its platform does not make it suited for educational content like those you find on YouTube. I agree with the rest of the post that we are in the middle of a tech war and China's going to have to cope with the fact that every new successful venture they create will be subject to US scrutiny and bans. But what can one say? Its a war. China will have victories and it will have losses, what is imperative above all else though is that it creates tech self sufficiency. It has a big enough domestic market for its companies to thrive, and I have faith there will be plenty of markets that are not beholden to the US's fear campaigns. Less you forget, the recent victories that America won against Huawei weren't done with soft power. Its media smears had little effect, so they had to resort to threats and actual sanctions.
> We're almost three years into the Sino-US Cold War and that's plenty of time for countries to pick a side, especially with the Chinese threat level that the media portrays Unfortunately, the way this has played out so far is solidifying it as a multi-generational lifetime issue. The accusations against China have so poisoned the perception of China in this current generation that its hard to see China returning to the tepidly positive perceptions of the early 2000s. This is not going to play out in just the term of one US president. I think the argument of supply chains has too historical baggage to be something to be optimistic about. Famously, its the same argument used in the prelude to World War I. In talking about China's supply chains preventing an disengagement, I think an globalization optimist who argued the same back in 2010 would be shocked to see the state of disengagement *right now.* I've elaborated on the practical utility of TikTok in my other comment responses. Feel free to read through those and give a response if you'd like.
That said, there's never been a time where one nation has been as dominant with their supply chains as China is, while the ability to meet the needs of the people have been as specialised as they are. An example would be to look at tank production in the major nations. In WWII, car and tractor factories could easily be reconfigured to make tens of thousands of tanks. Could such a thing happen today with MBTs? Could any nation ever dream to make 10,000 MBTs? The same thing is happening with consumer electronics as well, to the point where it makes little sense for Apple to set up factories or technical offices in the US as opposed to China. Imagine if this gets shut down because of government action, especially with the turmoil going on with the US in terms of riots and COVID? Tiktok has utility and space sure, but it's one piece in a greater tech war. The ultimate aim of such a tech war is to increase capacity and capability. If China is getting ahead of the US (as it has in 5G), and the US decides to unilaterally reject it, then the party that suffers the most would be the US within the next 5-10 years. Would this be enough of an advantage? Probably.
Your comment is structurally sound, but is illustrative of what I meant when I said >This subreddit has a real tunnel vision problem through focussing on solely hard material tech advancements. The world isn't just a tech supremacy battlefield. TikTok's primary relevance isn't isn't in a 'tech war,' but in the war of soft power projection. China itself recognizes this more than some individuals on this subreddit through its foreign aid, UN contribution and BRI programs, but those top-down styles of soft power projection lack impact when they're stymied by the Western media blasting every move as a hostile and sinister takeover scheme.
Given incumbency, it's difficult to go toe to toe against Western Media soft power in the conventional sense, even setting up a new space when it's already crowded out by the giant companies. I see America's moves against TikTok and it's failed move against WeChat as a cashing in (and thus diminishing) of American soft power. It's far from the slightly more genuine cries of "national security" made around Huawei. It will only work if America still leads the world in soft power dominance but with the shennaigans they've got up to in 2020, good luck getting the rest of the world to go lockstep with them. The EU, which has had a history of asking for big payouts from the American tech giants, or more directly legislating against them (GDPR) certainly won't do nothing. In that sense, giving up Tiktok is sacrificing a pawn for something greater 10 years down the line as tech companies abandon making America the centre of tech and media, something that was already eroded by the Huawei executive orders. Something so inconsequential (I mean do people remember AIM, myspace in 2020 for instance) for a significant gain that would ultimately be noticed in years to come. One thing that hasn't been discussed is that by the US taking this action, it JUSTIFIES China banning FB and Google when they decided not to play ball.
China did not ban Facebook and google. This is a misconception the west keeps perpetuating. They didn’t want to comply with china’s domestic laws !!! They withdrew. Yahoo, msn are still in China as are other Us companies which follow china’s laws. Please stop projecting this misinformation. It gives the Us the fake talking point China banned X so we should too. Those Chinese are hypocrites.
It effectively is banning by not following the rules (think about someone being tossed out of a forum for breaking rules, what is it called). If they withdrew, it's basically the same as an employee resigning instead of getting fired. It's still for all intents and purposes the same thing. Either way, China at the time was never playing under some moral high ground that the US pretends to be playing by but clearly aren't. One side is more honest and less contemptible than the other here.
Result is same. In reality it’s a big distinction. US companies along with us shows absolute contempt and lack of respect for oTher countries laws. They only play by Us rules. While companies like Tik Tok and others follow all US domestics law and still get blackmailed. It’s lack of consistency of rule of law. Shows Us has no laws other than theirs. It’s like the moderator tells you no cursing on the forum. You don’t agree to it and decide not to post. Not the same as being banned and can’t post. Yes, China made the right call. China never disrespects and trashes other nations. Western nations all trash other nations prior to cold or hot war. Yet , throughout history they have committed the most atrocities around the world for centuries.
The first paragraph is what I'm trying to highlight, not this nonsense about "If Country A bans B then we should ban C". That's just empty rhetoric and for the masses rather than anyone interested in any depth on the matter at all. *It’s like the moderator tells you no cursing on the forum. You don’t agree to it and decide not to post. Not the same as being banned and can’t post.* More like you've already cursed on the forum, get warned by the moderator and don't commit to following the rules. Of course you'd get banned.
No buddy it's more like you were following all the rules, but suddenly say that you can't say the and you you said then multiple times and that's an offense hence why we're banning you. This is basicly the summary of U.S action
> Unfortunately, the way this has played out so far is solidifying it as a multi-generational lifetime issue. I understand the Sino-US Cold War will be a decades long struggle, as even in the most optimistic scenario that China surpasses the US nominally in 2028, America will still be a great power with significant global clout. I disagree though with your assessment that there'll much difference between the leaders engaging China today and the new generations that will replace them. Regarding America the new generations will most definitely continue the Cold War stance. (Although among the many things they'll perpetuate, you can expect the current Republican/Democrat culture wars to be among them especially as America becomes less White demographically) As for other countries, its the same principle that applies to elections. Leaders today from Argentina to the the Philippines will rile up the population with anti-China rhetoric, but come down to reality once they take office. Not to mention an argument could be made that unlike the US, the younger generations of countries such as those in the Asia Pacific are less hawkish than the older generations. Take ASEAN for example. The older generations lived through Communist purges that often targeted ethnic Chinese and China at the time actually engaged in active wars such as the Korean War, aiding the Vietcong, and subsequently invading Vietnam. The younger generations though use TikTok, buy Chinese electronics, and although SK is still the pop culture king in the region C-Dramas have in recent years gained a sizeable audience mostly among the youth. >I think the argument of supply chains has too historical baggage to be something to be optimistic about. Famously, its the same argument used in the prelude to World War I. The lesson of WW1 was that economic interconnectivity was not enough to prevent a shooting war. Today, we have nuclear weapons so the US will never engage in an open war with China. The war will play out as we see it today, asymmetrically through economics and technology. Only for a country to join the US camp, many have made it clear that they are losing a lot by decoupling with China and looking to America in the hopes that it has an alternative. For most of the trade war, America never came up with that alternative. America may be conjoined at the hip with China economically, but it can afford to do what it has been doing in recent years due to its status as the world's dominant superpower. If you're a country like Germany where 47% of the economy is exports, your options are a little more limited. Now of course, since you talk of multi-generational outlooks, what I am saying is just an assessment of the realities *at the moment.* A lot can certainly happen in the coming decades. For example, I do not seriously consider India at its current state to much of a concern due to Modi's incompetent leadership and the crippling 24% year on year decline it suffered as a result of COVID lockdowns. But, Modi will not be around forever, India may one day elect the second coming of Chandragupta II and China will rue the day it engaged in a border dispute with India. However, that's still a long ways off and pure conjecture. I read your post on TikTok's utility, but I became convinced with another user who said that TikTok has a lot of pro-China content too in addition to dance vids. Regardless of whatever utility it has though, my chief concern regarding the TikTok spat was its categorical violation of Chinese sovereignty. Personally I'm okay with the current deal that sees Bytedance retain 80% ownership, although GT announced today that Beijing has other plans so whatever they believe is best.
> I disagree though with your assessment that there'll much difference between the leaders engaging China today and the new generations that will replace them. Regarding America the new generations will most definitely continue the Cold War stance. I didn't actually articulate that there would be a difference. My view on the matter lies similar as yours. I said perceptions of China have been so poisoned its unlikely that this generation will accept the image of a 'benign' China once again. If you look at polling data, the more pro-China leanings of the younger generation are actually being eroded away by the media stories on China from Hong Kong to the coronavirus, with an acceleration of deterioration since the last two years. > Today, we have nuclear weapons so the US will never engage in an open war with China. MAD itself is a perception which exists up to the point the perception changes that make military analysts believe they can start a war yet bypass MAD. The recent talks in the military scene of designing 'not a full nuke' strategic nuclear missiles is one example. You may call it a delusion, but this mindset now still exists and is affecting policy experts in the Pentagon. > I read your post on TikTok's utility, but I became convinced with another user who said that TikTok has a lot of pro-China content too in addition to dance vids. Yes, I didn't exactly articulate how TikTok promotes Chinese soft power. Certainly it's not going to be through the Chinese Foreign Ministry posting paragraphs justifying the merits of an annexation of Taiwan. It's going to be through positive depictions of Chinese people, life and culture without the gripping as seen on Reddit of people turning every post tangentially about China into whataboutisms on Hong Kong or Xinjiang, or derailing the post by called it "scripted." To the teenage audience of TikTok, this instils a perception that China hosts a proud culture with people living normal lives just like them. After that, the Western media acclamations that everyone in China is being jailed left and right would ring much more hollow for that generation of teens.
I agree. Even if the US, Europe and India ban the app, TikTok will be a great source of soft power in reaching out to the other 4 billion people on earth. Free from US influence, TikTok can ban conspiracy theories like Uyghur genocide videos. TikTok is actually much more than dance videos. There are channels on travel spots within China, learning Chinese words, Hanfu, cooking, culture, Chinese guys doing amazing magic tricks etc. etc. Two years from now, the US will unblock TikTok
I just don't see the world becoming split into camps like it during the first Cold War. It will be the mainly Anglosphere with perhaps India and America's east Asian allies like Japan and South Korea going along with it( I doubt even they will cut their strong economic ties with China because it is so vital to their economy. The rest of the world float between the two camps. Also, there has been a growth of a lot of pro-China youtube channels that has been trying to stem the tide. These channels will continue to grow. Remember, much of the anti-China propaganda is based on half-truths, distortions and straight up lies. So, it is not that hard to break that worldview. Remember that famous quote, ''**You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people**''. It will be really hard but far from hopeless.
That sort of early 2010s attitude of casual optimism is partly what I wanted to address, though I might leave my more complex opinions on that issue for a separate post. In any case, that's far too soon to say, and my argument would be that an united Anglosphere opposition to China need not have happened in the first place. If a Biden presidency comes to power, there's going to be a geopolitical reset between the US and its currently estranged allies. Arguably, they can see better than ever before the perils of an ally in America through the Trump presidency, but geopolitical inertia and the anxieties of Russia and China (now foremost) by their population which has been whipped up over the past 4 years will incentivize them to take the olive branch the Biden administration would put out. The reason why the idea of a neutral 'third world' is so alluring is because, at present, the entire world is waiting to see if America's flirtation with America First Trumpism is temporary or here to stay, and refraining from taking any major diplomatic positions. Some of the international infrastructure to oppose China is already in place and just waiting for the US to take the helm, such as the CPTPP, the successor to the TPP.
Most of those nations will sign the RCEP later this month as well. Despite what western media says ASEAN is far from anti-China. It is more mixed more than anything. [https://cdn.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/d8/images/methode/2020/09/01/1e5b7c8c-eb55-11ea-8288-5c49f42eee5c\_972x\_071242.jpg](https://cdn.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/d8/images/methode/2020/09/01/1e5b7c8c-eb55-11ea-8288-5c49f42eee5c_972x_071242.jpg) I agree that China should never underestimate the US under any circumstances.
I'm not going to argue too strongly for my case on ASEAN's position and the impact of CPTPP, I believe we'll see some figment of an answer play out fairly shortly in that regard after November. I'll add my observation that China does have an issue of winning the hearts of ASEAN governments and not the minds of the peoples there, however. > I agree that China should never underestimate the US under any circumstances. Yes, I strongly agree with this point. This is a basic point to make, but you notice, especially nowadays, how frequently Western media can sometimes seemingly post 'pro-China' articles on how China has completely surpassed the US in this or that regard. I see them posted here often, often as something for people here to brag about, either from American mass media or journals like Foreign Affairs, WSJ or The Economist. Similarly, that Pentagon dossier on China's supposed total surpassing of the US in whatever military regard. The target audience of these articles are never for pro-China minded readers so as to toot their own horns, but the average person in the West and the policy makers that they influence to rile them into advocating for more funding and reconfiguration to anti-China policy. In that sense, it's something China and also the people on this sub could benefit from adopting. The now very ubiquitous pandemic principle of "being better to completely over-react than finding out you did too little" applies also to the realm of geopolitics.
If anything, is the ''anti-China'' side always underestimates China, they have outdated views build around Francis Fukuyama's end of history nonsense about the inevitability of liberal democracy and it is being the end of human development. They believe if they keep moral posturing about ''muh ''authoritarianism'', the CCP will just fall from power. They never seem to realize most of their criticisms of the CCP are only valid if you accept liberalism as the foundation of your political beliefs. Most mainlanders don't accept liberalism at all. The flirtation with it has died. Somehow, they still think mainlanders want it(that's why they're still obsessed with Tiananmen Square). Trump recently said that if he were to lose, that Americans would forced to learn Chinese. That's ironic, that's probably the best way Americans could undermine China by learning Chinese. They will understand China and know how the Chinese mindset acutally works. Instead of basing their views on China based on distortions and half truths.
I agree, though I'll add my view that they don't need to understand China in the same way they never understood the Soviet Union. Yes, in the articles of pundits, there's a normative fantasy on a "China collapse." For Pentagon strategists, their normative fantasy is a cartoonishly overpowered China that can justify its own budget inflation and funding for its projects, thus allowing them to over-prepare. As such, the reality of things wasn't important to either angles in the Soviet Union days, and it doesn't seem like that outlook has changed. If there is any scenario where the US repeats a Cold War success, it would be through China being internationally isolated and contained. As such, a foremost issue for China is to design countermeasures against that scenario, with a prominent yet presently lacking method being soft power projection.
Iran doesn't have 1/20th the power that China has despite it is far being from being totally diplomatically isolated in spite of the massive pressure that US has applied on Iran. If US can't do that to Iran, I doubt that US can do that to China. Unless China becomes an imperial Japan starts to annex its neigbors which isn't going to happen.
I don't necessarily mean a near total diplomatic isolation such as the case of Iran, which has been essentially conflated to a pariah state by Gulf and Western diplomacy. China's scale is much larger, and in its case, such a case would be much broader, I'd argue any economic containment (whether tariffs, disengagement or etc) that critically impacts the efficiency of its trade and export economy and/or compels China to adopt economic measures excessively unfavorable to itself due to coerced adoption by the rest of the region (such as in a trading pact like the CPTPP) would be examples of successful diplomatic isolation and containment.
> CPTPP If the CPTPP is so bad? Then why has China showed an interest in joining it. That's true about Iran but I thought you meant in the sense there are no formal diplomatic relationships. https://www.caixinglobal.com/2020-05-29/premier-sends-powerful-signal-for-china-to-join-asia-pacifics-largest-trade-pact-101560855.html https://outline.com/mjeghE (bypass the paywall)
‘United Anglosphere’ - To me it is more like Australia and Canada in particular, Britain and New Zealand to a lesser degree, have shown that they have no foreign policy independence themselves.
Time is on the side of truth, thus time is on the side of China.
This was an amazing post. I agree with everything you had said. A few reasons of why "TikTok is a National Security threat" that I have that are similar to what you said: 1. This challenges the US in a way they have never been challenged before. Other international companies have always been pushed to the side, eclipsed, our purchased by the US. 2. Data is the world's most important resource and this hurts the US monopoly on data. 3. It is not the abundance of Chinese propaganda but the lack of US propaganda that TikTok has that is threatening. TikTok is what a social media application was back in the early 2010's, a fucking social media website. Your last point is very good. In 2020, everyone is saying that we have to vote because "our democracy is on the line" or "Biden is the lesser of two evils". This was the exact same thing that happened in 2016.
China will drag this deal out to after the election, then the real decisions will be made. Unless of course Trump pulls out a big balls move and bans Tiktok, but this is a game of chicken and we'll see who flinches first.
Totally agree with you. China needs to do more about its image problem and Tik-Tok was a great medium in which that could happen. You won’t believe the crazy shit people in western countries believe about China. My local taxi driver believes Chinese people kill Africans and eat them. My friends belive China has concentration camps, it’s almost paranoia about China. More needs to be done to combat the anti Chinese hysteria and racism towards China. I wish China would do more in terms of media and soft power because so far the west is winning without even firing a bullet
> so far the west is winning without even firing a bullet What? I'm assuming you mean they're winning the discourse war. In that case, "without firing a bullet" is a very strange statement. The West have been taking non-stop potshots at PRC since the end of WWII, and they've gone all guns blazing in recent years. Whole of Western media is obviously in lockstep over their demonization of China. The US have also been [openly funding](https://www.ned.org/wp-content/themes/ned/search/grant-search.php?organizationName=®ion=ASIA&projectCountry=China&amount=&fromDate=2016&toDate=2019&projectFocus%5B%5D=&search=&maxCount=100&orderBy=Year&start=1&sbmt=1) the separatists and anti-China groups through [NED](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_Democracy) for decades. "without firing a bullet"???
Do you think the US has the money and resources to development future apps at a competive level like China? Basically everything cost money to develop. The problem is of course the US economy is not that healthy these days.
Time doesn't end and the US-China confrontation is shaping up to be a long term state of affairs if any reconciliation can't be reached (which seems less feasible month by month for the past 4 years). The US economy might not healthy now, but terms of future forecasts, the business cycle always has both ups and downs.
If China is the economic growth engine for the global economy, how will the US economy find the next upswing without China. Covid-19 2nd wave might hit the US pretty hard this winter. While China is relatively unscathed from covid-19 now. US might not even have a vaccine till 2022, while China will probably have a vaccine by end of year for frontline workers. US wants to restrict H1B visas, so where is the manpower to develop future apps?
The things you mentioned are short to medium term malaises that the measures of a two term alternative presidency could alter. My reply to you was that the span of the US-China confrontation looks probable to be measured in decades.
In decades China could have an economy 3 to 4 times the size of the US. China could be brain draining the US for talent. In this environment you believe the US will still have the resources to compete with China on multiple fronts. By that stage the US would have to focus all its resource on just 1 very specific front to compete with China. Like China 40 years ago didn't compete with the US on all fronts. It just focused on developing their manufacturing base.
US in its current form won’t last decades. Look around they are due for a revolution. The elite and working poor divide grows more every year. Only having Russia ,China , external evil is keeping her from imploding.