I have a friend working for a company whose biggest clients are in the Emirates. One of said client is the government, and it is asking them to buy some very specific equipment, knowing fully well this equipment is only sold in Israel.
However, the Emirates cannot trade with Israel, and refuse to pay for any equipment labelled as coming from this country. Calling one of the officials, they asked for a solution. They told them to ship everything first to the UK. There, they should unpack every single object, and package them again with different country labels. Once the box has passed custom, nobody will raise the topic about the equipment origin.
Citizens of many countries would be in big trouble if they have a stamp from Israeli customs on their passports. Customs apparently issue a separate document not to put a stamp on the passport as a result. This enabled many tourists who are "not supposed" to go there to nonetheless go there.
Something similar happens in Turkish occupied Cyprus.
The Turkish airport in Turkish Cyprus is not recognized by Greek Cypiriot government, so if you do fly from Turkey to Cyprus, it is not considered a valid port of entry.
Thus you will get a stamp on a piece of paper, which you need to leave the country back to Turkey.
When traveling between the Turkish and Greek side of the island, the checkpoint guards will inspect your passport. As Greek Cyprus is part of the EU, EU laws require all EU Memberstates to allow free travel for any EU citizen. Likewise, due to agreements between the US, Cyprus and the EU, US citizens are too allowed free-travel. Citizens from other countries run the risk of being denied entry.
Before they started doing that, my dad was able to get a second passport just for Israel. Technically you were not allowed to have more than one passport (Ireland, 70s), but they made an exception.
I’m not sure if they still do but you used to be able to hold two passports simultaneously. One that was ‘clean’ for countries that didn’t recognise Israel and another for Israel.
Differs by country, but certainly true some places. Norway for example allows you to apply for a second passport, and the need for a "clean" one is one of the valid reasons you can give.
I meant citizens of the other countries that don't have diplomatic relations trying to go to Israel. They only have one passport and would be in trouble if they visited as their passport would be stamped, thus the scheme of a separate document. Meanwhile, the government buys things from Israel that transit via some nearby country to "simplify imports" through "creative incoterms" and naming and all.
I was annoyed by this - I wanted the stamp as a souvenir. The first time I went to Israel I got the "stamp on a sticker" thing, but the second time I just asked and they explained the reasoning, I affirmed my intent, and they stamped it.
That passport is since expired (it only had 3 years on it, at time of stamping), and my new passport book will get me wherever I happen to go. The souvenir sits safely in my safe.
This is also what used to happen when a citizen of the US (and anyone else who requested it) entered Cuba. Cuban immigration would take a little piece of paper, place it in the passport, and then stamp the piece of paper.
If the traveller happened to remove that piece of paper once the returned from Cuba, so be it.
Citizens of middle eastern countries that are hostile to Israel would care the most, but other international travelers also benefit from avoiding the Israel passport stamp to avoid unnecessary difficulties if they need to visit those middle eastern countries in future.
Tell your friend to tread carefully with requests like this.
My yearly "Business Conduct Training" (required by my employer) explicitly lists things like this as against company policy, a fireable offence, not to mention potentially illegal (circumventing embargoes, trade restrictions or sanctions).
Americans have extra rules to follow, so they simply can't do work like this and they are done by other companies who are either not subject to such rules, or exist in countries that won't enforce those rules.
It's a play on Club Med (which is more of a European thing, Med being short for Mediterranean, and here Fed short for Federal, as in Federal crime/prison).
I had never heard the term before today, but did appreciate its cleverness.
This is no longer true. The UAE normalised relations with Israel, almost two years ago[0]. There are even Israeli VCs, like Entree Capital, funding startups in the UAE.
I know some storys with relabeling some products in Switzerland to. A country would not deal with the EU. So stuff came to Switzerland, got a new label and got shipped.
International trading is a kind of funny place. I know a women who works on a company who make also things for large gas pipes (process industrie). She said, long before the war started, funny thing happened with a lot of involved companys.
Yes and now. Maybe this was a bad example. The start here was short after the war started, true.
Since I also don't know any names by myself, I can't tell much more.
But it was the only example in the media.
Also interessting is, but I never read why somewhere, Rheinmetall Defense for ex., they made year for year the same amount of money (10 years back). Until two years before the war, they made much more and one year before the war, more much more money again.
Also I know a guy who workes there sometimes. He said they had all hands full of work ti produce munition at least a year before the war started.
There is this human convention about "can/cannot" that assumes the reader is able to figure out the nuance of it.
If I say, "I can't walk it the street naked", I'm expecting you to understand the underlying causes. I'm not expecting that I have to explain to you that, yes, nothing prevent me physically to walk in the street naked, but indeed, I chose every day not to do it because I don't want to pay the social and/or legal price for it.
In the same way, given that tensions in the Middle East are pretty famous and that political issues between Muslim & Jews have implications in international trades, I'm making the assumption readers understand what "cannot" means here.
My point is that the UAE is a sovereign country. The only law that prevented trade with Israel was the one they made themselves. There wasn't any legal price for repealing it.
Indeed, and again, I'm expecting you to understand that they are making this choice because they don't want to pay the consequences of it. And that "cannot" is a short way to state that.
Now, from reading your comments, I'm going to assume you are in good faith, and you simply can't see what consequences they can face.
Although we can't know for sure such things without being an expert in middle-east politics, one can understand that if two groups of people have been at odds with each others for a long time, suddenly doing business with the opposite party is going to have political consequences.
E.G: assuming you are American. If you are a republican group, you can get financed by a left-leaning institution, but this will have political consequences.
> they are making this choice because they don't way to pay the consequences of it. And that "cannot" is a short way to state that.
I don't think that's a short way of saying the same thing though, for the kind of consequences you mean at least. Imagine if I were a vegan for ethical reasons. It'd be fine for me to say "I don't eat meat", but a lie to say "I can't eat meat", since I'd be perfectly capable of doing so, and be fine if I did, and just not want to anyway. Contrast this with if I had alpha-gal syndrome and someone me offered me a steak. In that case, I could truthfully say "I can't eat that".
Being neuro-atypical, I understand the desire to be "technically correct, the best kind of correct". It would be so much better if we used each word for their exact meaning.
But that's not how most human communication work. When people say "I cannot come tomorrow", they usually don't mean they can't. If you gave them one billion dollars to come, chances are they would.
This is a fairly common convention, and most people in the English language are using this approximation and assumption.
You can chose to ignore it of course.
I consider I've done my part in this conversation, and wish you a nice day.
> But that's not how most human communication work.
It's not even how it can work. See the Malicious Genie problem for a memorable demonstration of the fundamental problem. Chasing "precision" beyond what's necessary tends to harm communication, not aid it. Norms and context are super-important.
So then since relations have been normalized, no there would not be significant consequences to them engaging in trade, so it would be mean that yes they can trade.
Using the definition that you gave, yes they would be able to trade, because many of those bad consequences of trading have gone away.
Sure. What I was trying to distinguish was between something that would cause real harm for reasons outside of your control, versus something that goes against some principles you made up for yourself but with no other consequences.
> Contrast this with if I had alpha-gal syndrome and someone me offered me a steak. In that case, I could truthfully say "I can't eat that".
If the person said: "eat this steak and I'll give you a billion dollars or don't, and I'll kill everyone on this planet in the most painful way imaginable, including you", I doubt your response would be "I can't eat that".
There are no political issues between muslim and jews. You maybe meant :
- there are political issues between the jewish state and it's muslim majority neighbours
- there is a conflict between jews and muslims in Palestine and Israel
> there is a conflict between jews and muslims in Palestine and Israel
There's a conflict between the settlers/gentrifiers (and their police State, military industrial complex, and security apparatus) and the rest of the population. From what i hear there is still an anti-nationalist/anti-colonization/anti-war jewish movement in Israel, what remains of a once-strong internationalist socialist/anarchist jewish movement.
Yeah makes sense. I love the politics like this where everyone is firmly in solidarity but everyone is making deals out the back door. Like Europeans at war with Russia but buying gas, Americans hating China but spending all their money on stuff made there, Communist leaders hating America but sending their kids to school there.
I'm not sure that, at least historically, that would be looked upon amicably by their neighbouring countries or populations. That has changed over time though which has allowed this to happen.
Unlike in the US, where it is expressly against federal law to remove origin marks, and sure to attract enthusiastic prosecution, the UK has no law – Act of Parliament or secondary legislation – which generally requires products to be origin marked. The exception to this is food which is required to be origin marked under EU Regulation 1169/2011. Origin marking for all products other than food is voluntary. So that is why.
Trade is really a matter for the government, and the US (sadly) adheres to the One China Policy. This just reflects the official policy, and having the companies pick this fight instead of the country is hypocritical.
We have free speech in the US. Freedom means choice, so there's still an obligation to act morally. China is more than willing to manipulate cultural messages with money, so we need some kind of cultural counter to that.
For instance, see how China manipulated the NBA and Activision Blizzard during the Hong Kong protests.
But competing messages are allowed so while the rich manipulate public opinion, they are not unitary and other voices are still heard, wealthy battling wealthy and large social movements too.
These false equivalence’s are really tiring. China’s control of public speech and media is on a wholly different plane.
It’s not even remotely comparable to manipulation in the West.
Are we really doing this? Are you really serious? Besides the fact that most of the country is firewalled off from foreign media, and besides the fact that only one political party is allowed, and besides the fact that political prisoners are routinely jailed for nothing more than denying a government narrative, holding mock polls, publishing or assembling (and I don't mean held for a day or two like in the West, but jailed for years)
Can a US citizen go on media, or organize a public protest, in which they call Joe Biden or Donald Trump, bad people, with bad policies? Yes, US citizens can publicly call for the highest level politicians in the land to lose their jobs, and with no real repercussions.
People on social media can scream "Let's Go Brandon" or meme like crazy about Biden. But Weibo, Wechat, Bilibili, Douyin, frequently censor even the most milquetoast sarcastic remarks about the CCP or Xi, including the infamous Baozi and Panda blocks.
Can a famous Chinese public individual/celebrity/intellectual, in China, tell a huge crowd and media, that I think the CCP are horrible and that Xi Jinping needs to be booted from power?
Stop trying to draw false equivalencies.
> I mean, some people believe there are no public elections in China, so…
Sure, where the CCP select and approve the candidates, control the election progress, and there is no free media coverage or transparency free of state control. Practically no real international election monitors. And no direct nationwide elections. Rather, a many levels of indirection process, effectively controlled by a President for life. Let's see what happens at Beidaihe and the 20th national congress in November. Think anything will change? I don't.
There's practical no competing, transparent system in these so called 'democratic elections' making them in effort, a Potemkin village with the veneer of popular will, but in fact, nothing of the sort. There are about 50 individuals in the US congress worth more than $10 million, and not a single one who is a billionaire. Trump was the only billionaire to have office. Meanwhile, there are 100+ CCP members in the Congress who are billionaires.
Does this look like a system chosen by public debate, awareness, and discussion?
For all of the flaws in the Western systems, and there are a vast number, it is really tiring seeing tankies try to say "everything's the same" with zero nuance, as if none of it matters.
>Are we really doing this? Are you really serious?
See, there's your problem: when you realise facts don't match your beliefs, you start "are we really" instead of reconsidering those beliefs.
>Besides the fact that most of the country is firewalled off from foreign media
Foreign media is easily accessible in China using VPN. Meanwhile, Chinese (or non-western in general) media is pretty much entirely unknown in US. It's largely because of language barrier, but not only that.
>and besides the fact that only one political party is allowed
Only until you realise that party is something entirely different from what we in the West call parties. But even if it was similar, it wouldn't be much worse than the American system, where you have two parties that are very closely related and sponsored by the same corporations.
>and besides the fact that political prisoners are routinely jailed for nothing more than denying a government narrative
In US people are routinely killed on the street for nothing more than being black. Seriously though, do you really believe there's no political discourse in China?
>and I don't mean held for a day or two like in the West, but jailed for years
In US you can get jailed for years for literally nothing, simply because it's less risky to give up and go to jail for a shorter sentence than prove your innocence, and prosecutors abuse this all the time. Or for any minor infraction because the three strikes law, which was literally created to get as many people into jails as possible. And let's not forget the forced labor.
>Yes, US citizens can publicly call for the highest level politicians in the land to lose their jobs, and with no real repercussions.
... to those politicians. That's the point: in US you are allowed to say whatever you want, because it doesn't matter; the election system is already rigged, everyone knows that it's not the majority choice that wins elections, and nobody cares - because nobody can do anything about it. Compare this to China, where government officials can actually get convicted and jailed. Chinese prime minister responsible for Tienanmen spent the rest of his life in house arrest. American officials responsible for Kent State shootings, or for the bombing a city block, killing a number of random kids and shooting at survivors, which name escapes me - nobody got prosecuted.
>But Weibo, Wechat, Bilibili, Douyin, frequently censor even the most milquetoast sarcastic remarks about the CCP or Xi
[citation needed]
>Can a famous Chinese public individual/celebrity/intellectual, in China, tell a huge crowd and media, that I think the CCP are horrible and that Xi Jinping needs to be booted from power?
Can a famous US public individual, in US, tell a huge crowd and media that they believe US supreme court and Senate need to be booted from power?
>Sure, where the CCP select and approve the candidates, control the election progress
Exactly like in US; the party nominates various public officials who oversee the elections, not to mention gerrymandering.
>And no direct nationwide elections.
Just like US presidential elections. Although I'm not sure if in China it's legal to corrupt electors; in US it is and it has already happened in the past.
>Think anything will change? I don't.
So, here's the thing: things do change, all the time. If you actually read anything about Chinese political system, you'd noticed that the "old" communist party, the one which stood for Cultural Revolution, has been delegalised. China wouldn't be able to develop order of magnitude faster than US without changes to law. Meanwhile in US you can still land in prison for life just because you're out of luck.
>There's practical no competing, transparent system in these so called 'democratic elections' making them in effort
And here we go again, Americans believing there is no political discourse in other countries, and at the same pretending with straight face that the US is a functional democracy.
>Meanwhile, there are 100+ CCP members in the Congress who are billionaires.
Thank you, that's interesting. Source?
>For all of the flaws in the Western systems, and there are a vast number, it is really tiring seeing tankies try to say "everything's the same" with zero nuance, as if none of it matters.
See, here's the thing: I do understand your point; it was my point of view for the past two decades. Until I realised it just doesn't match observable reality. What you are describing is just prejudice; a colonial mindset based on a combination of racism and ignorance, which is what American exceptionalism boils down to.
Also, we're not talking about "Western systems"; there are many western countries that are proper democracies. But US is not one of them. It's a pseudo-democracy, like China, except it serves corporations, not people. That's why the quality of life in US is dropping, while in China it's skyrocketing. Ever wondered why Americans get so surprised whenever some Chinese oligarch gets into trouble? Or how comes an American court can let a convicted pedophile free because "he wouldn't feel good in a jail", assuming of course he's wealthy enough?
Have you ever wondered why things that doesn't match your state propaganda appear to be a trolling? I'd love to understand why are you doing this: are you bored, uneducated, or just US shill?
I mean, the fact that you're not making sense should be obvious even to you, as you can't provide even a single argument to support your "point of view".
No, what I wonder is why you make a lot of statement like "state propaganda" without knowing which state I live in and without quoting any source. Please prove a/ my state (Germany) is doing propaganda and b/ I am only listening to this propaganda.
Also, you're sentences do not make sense. "Why you are doing this" => what is "this", you forgot to define it.
Meanwhile, China is a country where people live in fear of publicly expressing their opinion, this is well documented. 10s on the web finds this:
Okay, so you’re shilling for somebody else’s country. A bit sad, but it’s not for me to judge.
> Also, you're sentences do not make sense. "Why you are doing this"
That’s your sentence, I just quoted it.
>China is a country where people live in fear of publicly expressing their opinion
Just like the US - you don’t have any protections against an employer firing you for something you said in your free time, because it “goes against company values”.
You’re also mistaking freedom of press with freedom of speech, but again, that’s a minor mistake in this context.
But most of all: you still hadn’t shown any actual data to back your ideas.
In democratic countries they are not, because the society can control the state. In US they pretty much are, because the companies control the state. In particular, in US the company can fire you on the spot, strip you of healthcare, and make sure you won’t be able to find another job simply because you said something - anything - it doesn’t like. And it’s all legal.
So I think I'm getting your point slowly. It's not that China is great but rather you think the US are deeply corrupt.
It's a valid point to think autocracy is better than corruption.
I disagree on the level of corruption in the US I think, as far as I understood you. I do not deny there is corruption though.
I would be interested in knowing the level of corruption in China but I think the autocratic grip on the press is too strong to have any valuable data.
Thank you! Indeed that would be a (rather rough) first approximation. It's more complex than that though.
First, I'm not convinced that US is less autocratic than China. European countries of course are, but US is not a functioning democracy anymore; it's corporations who decides how the Congress will vote, not citizens.
Second - I think we might be using a different definition of "corruption". In US many mechanisms that would normally be considered corruption are legal, and thus aren't technically a corruption.
And yeah, would be great to have more reliable numbers for China. I don't think that's due to the "grip"; rather, it's a cultural thing: Chinese don't seem to value openness same way we do. At the same time, China is absurdly huge; I'm not sure we can have reliable numbers for all of the geographical Europe, and China is twice that.
illiac786 already did most of the work, but I just wanted to respond to a few things.
>Foreign media is easily accessible in China using VPN
VPNs not sanctioned by the government (most of them) are officially against the law. It might be easy, but piracy is also easy. That doesn't mean there's no issue with expensive media.
> do you really believe there's no political discourse in China
There is no public political discourse. There is private dinner table discourse. And Chinese people know very well not to criticize the CCP on WeChat or Weibo.
> the election system is already rigged,
No it isn't, that's conspiratorial nonsense.
> Compare this to China, where government officials can actually get convicted and jailed.
> Can a famous US public individual, in US, tell a huge crowd and media that they believe US supreme court and Senate need to be booted from power?
Yes. It's been done many many times.
> Exactly like in US; the party nominates various public officials who oversee the elections, not to mention gerrymandering.
No, not like in the US. In the US, opposing parties appoint opposing monitors. So when people are monitoring the count, you have Democrats and Republicans inspecting ballots together. It is not a single party, it is a competitive adversarial system.
>See, here's the thing: I do understand your point; it was my point of view for the past two decades. Until I realised it just doesn't match observable reality. What you are describing is just prejudice; a colonial mindset based on a combination of racism and ignorance, which is what American exceptionalism boils down to.
Are you Chinese or have you lived in China for an extended period of time? I've been married to a Chinese citizen for 20 years, my extended family is all Chinese, my two children are half Chinese, I speak Mandarin (HSK4-5) and read Hanzi, and I have lived in China, traveled to almost every province, including weeks in Xinjiang. I regularly read Chinese media (Weibo, Xinhua, Bilibili, etc).
I take issue with you attempting to call me a racist, especially since if anything, I have a deep admiration for Chinese culture (which Mao actively tried to destroy BTW)
The problem I see with your viewpoint is that there is no nuance. Anything corrupt is equal, it's all a wash. So whatever specific problems the Chinese system has, you can't criticize them, because your system's problems (which are different in scope and kind) are just as bad. Ergo, if you criticize China you're just ignorant and a racist.
But what if you're capable of criticizing both? I grew up in the ghetto in Baltimore. I lived sandwiched between two crackhouses. My sister died of heroin addiction. My brother in jail. I escaped, became a successful entrepreneur, engineer, and traveled the world.
I have been a life long critic of the US system, of the neo-liberal corpocracy. But I have strong ethics and values around coercion, corruption, and censorship, and I'm not going to just sit by and give the Chinese government a free pass on what I view as a bad autocratic regime. And I can hold that position unironically, while being opposed to US foreign policy adventures, and US corporate lobbying influence that sandbags social democratic problems.
They are two different problems, not the same. And I can tell you from living behind the great firewall, and having grown up in the US ghetto, which problem I'd rather deal with.
What I find ironic, is from your other posts, you apparently support Ukraine in the Ukraine<->Russia conflict, but China actually supports Russia, and Chinese state media parrots endlessly the 'denazification' model in Mainland China, and you see Chinese citizens on Tiktok, Weibo, parroting these claims, that Ukraine is full of nazis.
But nah, having a government in complete control of the national media and what's allowed to be said on tech platforms isn't a problem, right?
To me, if you want to be morally consistent, you have to strongly criticize both systems. You're attempting to deflect and distort criticism of China by making it into a competition/comparison with the US system.
I've only now noticed your response, sorry. Lots of good points, some maybe less good, but I'd like to answer those two:
>I have been a life long critic of the US system, of the neo-liberal corpocracy.
Okay, we're similar in that regard then. However, I don't think we can pretend that US isn't trying to manufacture consent for another war. I also don't think we should ignore the fact that western media present a very single-sided view.
>> Can a famous US public individual, in US, tell a huge crowd and media that they believe US supreme court and Senate need to be booted from power?
>Yes. It's been done many many times.
And for some of those people it ended badly - from being shunned to finding themselves killed in interesting circumstances. (Okay, perhaps not claiming literally those specific two things.)
>What I find ironic, is from your other posts, you apparently support Ukraine in the Ukraine<->Russia conflict, but China actually supports Russia
China and Russia have a common enemy, but the war made them split ways. China has pulled out from all the strategic investments, and is quite religiously following the sanctions. Even Huawei exited the Russian market.
>Chinese state media parrots endlessly the 'denazification' model in Mainland China, and you see Chinese citizens on Tiktok, Weibo, parroting these claims, that Ukraine is full of nazis.
A colleague of mine who is Chinese walked by a protest in China and inadvertently checked his phone. He was interrogated by state police for almost a day during the following weekend.
And a guy in US was harassed by NSA for a YouTube video of his. Look, it’s not that this stuff doesn’t happen in China - rather, it’s also happening in US, you’ve just learned to ignore it.
I'm not American, so I may be missing some details, but is that actually not allowed? Or is it rather the case that some people may not like that, so companies try to avoid upsetting some customers?
It is allowed, and some companies have based their business around it.
For that matter, I've received written correspondence from people while doing genealogical research with the return address listed as "Mobile, Alabama, Occupied CSA". There are definitely cultural norms that come into play here, but in that particular case - it was from an officer of a chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and contained photocopies of Confederate military records - I was amused by it. I kept the envelope and included it in my own archives.
As others said, it may be allowed, and I did not know either ways but it was a rhetorical point.
Now even if it is allowed, suppose this was a Federal government procurement. Will Feds buy something with such flags? Nope. Once that happens, it can be easily demagogued.
I’m an American, but not involved in any kind of federal purchasing. I would have assumed that a federal purchaser would make up a reason not to buy my otherwise-perfect product if it had some unpopular statement on it, like a Confederate flag.
Do you know of any counter examples where a company was able to make a successful bid with a product that had good fit, but an inconvenient non-functional addon like that?
Yes, we can put whatever odious symbols on our products.
The Confederate flag is a bit weird because there's enough of the population that apparently doesn't see it that way, so some stores will even display products that have it. (Personally I find it to be an awful symbol and wouldn't stick around if I saw it displayed).
An example that is more like what you've described is something like a Nazi swastika -- technically you can sell something with a swastika on it (I'm 99.9% sure) but almost no stores would be willing to put it on the shelves, certainly no major chains or whatever.
> China is more than willing to manipulate cultural messages with money, so we need some kind of cultural counter to that.
No we don't. China may act peeved that foreign companies are virtue signalling, but they'd secretly relish at the opportunity of finding an excuse to boycott or ban these foreign products, so that their wealth stays circulating in their domestic economy. Look at what happened to Nike and H&M after they voiced concerns about Xinjiang. The CPC organized consumer boycotts of these companies, but happily allowed factories to continue to sell their goods to sell to them. China itself recognizes that it only makes sense to virtue signal when it is economical to do so.
The NBA and Blizzard made the correct decision to kowtow to China, economically as well as morally. Getting them kicked out of China does not help Hong Kong, but would threaten to free world as the balance of trade would make us even more beholden to China. In a complicated, globalized world, marginal thinking is the only option.
> Look at what happened to Nike and H&M after they voiced concerns about Xinjiang.
A global company that wastes resources engaging in hysterically overblown State Department propaganda is a company that compromises the credibility of its leadership to make intelligent strategic decisions.
We're out of the unipolar era, and companies that are stuck it in it will get outpaced.
Apple didn't either (for premium smartphones) until, arguably, basing their manufacturing there helped standup a large infrastructure that could easily be turned around to make Huawei, Xiaomi, and other devices.
If Apple had somehow managed to make iPhones in Vietnam instead of Shenzhen, would they really be facing the premium tier competition from Huawei they face in the EU?
True. But as a tech company it is much better they fight tech battles like privacy policy, acceptable law enforcement behavior, acceptable tracker use, etc.
Let some other company fight the battle over what to put on the label.
They aren't just a tech company though are they? They are one of the largest companies in the world with an annual turnover comparable with small countries like Denmark or Norway.
That is true but they aren’t a country. They don’t set international policy. They have little to gain and a lot to lose picking this battle.
For one thing they have close business relationships with people in both china and Taiwan. They have employees in both countries. Vendors. Human relationships. Those might get kinda awkward if they picked this battle.
And what do they gain picking this battle? A few internet points?
I don't see how it is sad. The One China Policy is simultaneously amicable with the PRC and ROC constitutions. They both claim One China and the United States acknowledges that there is One China, but the United States makes no claims no preference for either government in resolving the Taiwanese straight conflict as it is a civil war.
What you're missing is that "One China" is now a mere diplomatic fiction. The only reason the US and Taiwan insist on it is to avoid unnecessary escalation with China. But, as a matter of fact, Taiwan is a completely independent, sovereign and autonomous state, over which China has absolutely no legal or practical control.
That's true, but as far as the world is concerned, Taiwan is de jure part of the One and only China, which is the PRC as of now. And of course the PRC has zero desire to recognise the fact that Taiwan is an independent country. So the status quo here, same as the one between the Koreas, is basically the only way things can remain peaceful until some drastic change happens (e.g. the PRC falling).
US, sadly, have always supported the right wingers against "the commies", no matter the consequences.
When they started to support Taiwan in 1945, Chiang Kai-shek was a nationalist who imposed the martial law on Taiwan for 40 years (until the end of the 1980s!), waiting to strike back and regain "full control of China" (that's how One China principle was born, RPC has nothing to do with it! it was even in the ROC Constitution until 1992!)
Nixon changed everything when he visited mainland China and talked to Mao in 1972, that lead to the US-China trade agreement of 1979.
Until 1972 US had an agreement with Chiang Kai-shek, Taiwan "temporary" government was the only recognized China, they were bound to protect it in case of attack, they supported his claims of reunification under his ruling and the UN seat for China was that of Taiwan, even though 99% of the people of China lived on mainland.
USA has been very ambiguous since then, on one side they acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China and does not challenge that position, on the other they are formally Taiwan allied, but there's no more an US embassy in Taipei and no Taiwanese embassy in Washington.
They even moved their "One China" capital from Taipei to Beijing.
Reminder: indigenous people of Taiwan are only 2% of the original population, the rest is 97% Han Chinese, so one China is quite an accurate description.
They only differ about the alliances they made, but the mythological example of freedom for Asian countries that Taiwan should be, is just a myth
Also, 2021 referendum on pork ban from USA shows that to keep having the support of USA, the ruling political party in Taiwan has to to satisfy their demands, even when it (potentially) poses a risk for the entire Taiwanese population.
USA are not there as mere observers, but as strongly interested party, with deep economical interests.
And to exploit cheap labor, that made the fortune of Apple with their iPhone.
The truth is that until not long ago, Taiwan had access to better weapons thanks to the USA that compensated for the smaller army. Their technological superiority combined with the threat of US navy showing up at the border kept China at bay and forced them to think twice before trying to retake Taiwan.
How terrible of them to adhere to the policy Taiwanese themselves prefer!
EDIT: To clarify, from what I remember the public opinion on Taiwan independence has been steadily shifting and now it’s the majority’s preference compared to becoming another province of China. At the same time the vast majority of Taiwanese prefer the option “let’s keep things as they are now”, if that option is available in the poll. Taiwan does have some special ties with continental China, particularly in economy and travel; it’s more like EU than two entirely unrelated countries.
First, US's One China policy is US's policy. It makes no sense for Taiwanese to adheres to a US's policy.
Second, US's One China policy is only a word play. It acknowledges China's position regarding Taiwan but doesn't actually agree or disagree to it. That's why it still provide defense for Taiwan.
Third, your comment about public opinion is a complete nonsense. Taiwan is a democratic nation. If the majority prefers being a province of China, it would have already voted to do so. And the only reason people choose to "keep things as they are now" is to avoid provoking a war with China.
First, it’s China’s policy that US claims to adhere to.
Second - yeah, your point being?
Third - yes, it is a democratic nation, and the prevalent majority of that democratic nation wants to keep things as they are, as evidenced by polls[1]. This nation doesn’t want war. Compare this with the standard modus operandi of US. Sometimes they are the good guys, sometime they kill a million people in Middle East, but it’s always about a war somewhere far away from US.
1. Notice how different this is from Ukraine. Ever wondered why there are so many… persons equating China and Russia?
Lie? If it's a lie, then it's a lie promoted by the Taiwan government itself, on its official government website and even in its constitution. Taiwan, like mainland China, even still claims Tibet as its territory. They do mainland China one better, they claim Mongolia as well. See supporting references in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32358560
A link [1] referenced in your supporting evidence suggests it is but a remnant of the Chinese Civil War. But even then, Taiwan's constitution does state that a vote may be held in order to change such territorial claims. This only made it in the 7th revision, in 2004 [2].
I would also like to make it clear that mainland China is the only one that has ever put these claims (except for Mongolia) into practice.
Taiwan until around 1990 froze into place representatives from all the mainland provinces in its legislature, thereby effectively nullifying the democratic voice of the people who lived on the island.
Taiwan's "外生人", those born on the mainland and who fled to Taiwan at the end of the civil war, took over the government, suppressing the views and interests of the "Taiwanese", the Chinese who speak the local Chinese dialect and who lived there before. You know, kinda like what Russia wants to do with Ukraine.
The Taiwanese themselves previously took over the island, suppressing the view and interests of the aborigine people, who are Austronesian, not Chinese. Again, kinda like what Russia wants to do with Ukraine.
So if we're going to talk about democracy and freedom and sovereignty, we need to be less tribal/self-serving about it and more honest.
If we're going to castigate China, are you also going to castigate America about Hawaii? If not, then I don't think that's honest. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I recommend you read about what Native Hawaiians feel about America. There's also Puerto Rico. And the US taking the Southwest form Mexico, and then closing its border, treating migrant workers from south of the border like shit, all the while looking the other way as we can make them work for below minimum wage and no protections all so we can have cheaper produce and have cheaper restaurants and all the other things that depend on cheap brown labor. We can go further and talk about Europeans taking it all from the indigenous people.
I'm not defending China or Russia. I'm pointing out the huge amount of self-serving cherry-picking and hypocrisy.
I don't think you can compare this to Russia and Ukraine at all. Russia (at least the western part) and Ukraine is Slavic. Ukraine and Russia were one country for 450 years and before the beginning of the 20th century that current nationalist movement did not exist. Ukraine literally means borderlands in old Slavic language.
If anything, it was the Slavs in that region that expanded eastward and resettled conquered territories e.g. Tatars(Crimea) to the eastern parts.
Taiwan was inhabited by Austronesians, some of which were butchered by the dutch when they first drove them out, then by Portuguese, later by the Japanese (for a while a lot of Taiwanese considered themselves Japanese, while others on that Island fought of the invaders in the east) and sometime in between all that Hakka and other Han Chinese settled the island.
After loosing the civil war as you know Chiang Kai-shek settled there while running a brutal dictatorship where the first thing he did was take all the local currency and reissue his own. I think the biggest giveaway on how problematic Taiwans history with China is, is that some of the biggest treasures that Mao tried to destroy are in the national history museum in Taipei.
I agree with you that Taiwan never accepted changing it's own constitution(i.e. passports are still issued as RoC, not as Taiwan), but you absolutely cannot compare Ukraine to Taiwan. Neither in geography nor in history.
I didn't want to sound "tribal", just making it clear that Taiwan hasn't been as bad as mainland China. It's true that there's a lot of corruption inside the country, and I guess that even the USA has been hesitant thanks to that.
Originally, I didn't even talk about the USA's morally dubious nature, which I think it can certainly be pointed out. But try and formulate those points in a different way next time, don't imply something others haven't said.
Nevertheless, I agree. There's a lot of hypocrisy on this, even if I think that it's for different reasons (the USA just wants to make sure they have a way to choke out China's navy through another "friend").
> The Taiwanese themselves previously took over the island
That makes no sense.
From Wikipedia:
> Around 6,000 years ago .... Austronesian ... Han Chinese fishermen began settling in the Penghu islands in the 13th century.
That's 800 years ago.
Are you going to motivate an attack and invasion and war today, with what others did that far ago?
And then:
> In 1626, the Spanish Empire landed on and occupied northern Taiwan [...] 1642, when the last Spanish fortress fell to Dutch forces.[83] The Dutch then marched south, subduing hundreds of villages
That's Spain and the Netherlands, not Taiwan, occupying ... Taiwan.
You could have the whole world be at war with itself everywhere, by looking back some hundred years and motivating conflicts today with what you then find.
So what? That doesn't change the fact that, practically, Taiwan is Chinese. The language and writing system, if nothing else, kinda give it away. Taipei's "One China" position merely acknowledges this fact, without committing to any stance that the CCP is the legitimate government of any country.
Why would they? England itself is only a minor part of the British Isles. They would however have a chance of being part of a broader Commonwealth of Nations, were it not for a troublesome Declaration they circulated in 1776. This is why claims to "independence" should not be made carelessly, and why official U.S. policy is especially careful to avoid them wrt. Taipei.
You said that Taiwan's language and writing system made them Chinese. By that reasoning, the US would be English. But thanks for clarifying that sharing a language and writing system with another country, doesn't necessarily make you part of that country.
But this is not about "being part of a country"; it's first and foremost about sharing a common culture and history. Facile claims to "Taiwan independence" that ignore these nuances are tantamount to a denial of this shared past and common identity that is part of the continuing lived experience of many people in Taiwan. They are oppressive, dehumanizing and hurt the feelings of the Chinese people who live on the island.
What's the relevance of any of this? You originally said that Taiwan's language and writing system made them Chinese. I've repeatedly demonstrated that such reasoning is nonsense.
There may be other arguments that Taiwan is Chinese, but I haven't really given you my thoughts on those (hypothetical) arguments.
"Dehumanizing" to the Chinese people? You know, I was under the impression that total government surveillance, in-person monitoring of religious minority communities and regular internet censorship was the most dehumanizing part. Whatever the CCP calls 'oppressive' should be taken with a grain of salt.
China and Taiwan can share a history, but that doesn't entitle them to reconciling their differences. Much like the other commenters brought up, establishing Taiwanese independence is obviously the smartest path from here. China has had their feelings hurt for almost a century over Taiwan. Entire generations of humans have lived and died in the time Taiwan has enjoyed sovereignty. China knows it's time to let go, but they can't look weak or suffer the same fate as Russia. Continuing to threaten Taiwan is just part of their political-industrial complex, nothing more.
It will be painful. It will cause huge economic disruption. There will be a fall in living standards and severe inflation.
But, it's time for US companies to pull out of China. The moral imperative to help China rise out of poverty through trade is done. They are no longer a poor country. Now we are compromising our values for something stupid ... for cheaper iPhones.
Long term our Grandchildren will all be under the boots of the CPC if we don't take the pain now.
I'm not suggesting we war with China. I'm suggesting we remove their leverage from our economies. As long as EU and America need Chinese goods to subsidize their massively irresponsible fiscal policies, Chinese dictators will have leverage over Western people.
You have to sacrifice material well-being for freedom at the right time, or you will have neither in a generation.
I've thought this for the last 10+ years or so. I even tried to not buy anything that was "made in china" for many years. I'm so amazed that people were fine with the recent higher gas prices because it would be helping the war in Ukraine. But yet no one wants to end trade with china because it would rise the costs of goods. Just 40 years ago there was literally nothing coming from china. They flood our markets with cheap crap that is made by burning coal, nobody cares that the end product breaks in mere days or weeks because you can just "buy another one". They've ruined the entire aftermarket parts industry for cars as almost every replacement part you buy at autozone is a chinese knockoff that will leave you stranded on the side of the road (my family runs an auto shop, the parts reliability issues are insane while autozone stock goes to the moon).
And then the main issue is all this cheapness is possible because workers are paid pennies a day and take meth so they can work 15 hour days doing tedious hand assembly because the person labor is cheaper than using a machine to automate. And now our media is flooded with news bites about how oppressive and racist america is while china gets away with literal slavery and everyone there believes all non-chinese are inferior.
Are you implying everyone sent their factories to China to "help the Chinese out of poverty" and not to reap record profits based on basically slave labor?
We need to fix the systems that allowed and made this decision in the first place or another stupid one will follow.
In some ways, and I know this will be unpopular, but is it free market capitalism that enabled the CCP to rise to such power? ie "You're freedom to choose cheap shit"?
I'm certainly not arguing for communism ourselves, but I mean, China didn't force us to move manufacturing there, won't it just happen again ?
I wonder what Apple would now list if updating their FY20 supplier list[1] which simply states "Taiwan" for manufacturing locations for many of their suppliers.
Some of the suppliers in the list[1] operate manufacturing facilities in both mainland China and Taiwan, and their websites refer to a combination of "China", "Taiwan" and "R.O.C.". I do wonder how difficult it would be for these companies to deal with both governments at the same time! For example, the visa policies of each government towards each other appear to be very restrictive[2][3].
Seems like they're just following local import/trade rules? I think the rule is bad but presumably plenty of local trade rules are stupid. One doesn't get to pick and choose which to follow.
I guess the implication is that going along with China's stance on Taiwan is "going to far" ethically and Apple should refuse, but I can't quite see this.
China is Taiwans largest trade partner. For example, 33% of its steel is from China (Taiwan being in the top 7 steel importer, in the world). With Harbor Freight being the destination, it's not unlikely that 90% of the materials in those tools are from China, including a good majority of the standard cogs, switches, and doo-das within.
Why is this interesting? Taiwan has to compete in the Olympics as Chinese Taipei or whatever. Yeah, any place that China can influence, it makes Taiwan call itself China.
It is interesting because it exposes Apple, which as a company often tries to present itself as a champion of freedom, and other modern values. Yet as is reaffirmed here (and previously with AppStore etc), when profits are involved it is willing to overlook the most egregious forms of injustice and violence.
Literally every tech company stands up for good causes like BLM and LGBTQ+ rights; but the true measure of courage is when there are consequences involved with taking a stand.
Does he support it publicly? I'm not really aware of anything noteworthy other than when he came out a decade ago. Not saying it's necessary but I wouldn't characterize him as an LGBTQ activist.
He has been in a pride parade in the past and has mentioned it in interviews/tweets.
I wouldn't call him an activist at any stretch, but he doesn't hide his support.
So we… expect Apple to break the law in China in order to make some kind of moral stand?
And that moral stand is over the sovereignty of a country?
Even though the US government, with vastly more resources at its disposal and more ability to withstand the consequences of Chinese anger, does not make this stand?
A couple years ago, they removed the VPN apps from the chinese app store, anything after that is nonsense marketing blabla for everyone not living in the US
Taiwan calls itself China. The official name is literally the Republic of China. Both China and Taiwan agree that there is just one China, but disagree about what formal unification would or should look like.
This is kind of dated view [1]. The median position in Taiwan is something like "change nothing" (status quo). Essentially nobody wants reunification in any realistic manner.
Both East Germany (when it existed) and West Germany were "Germany" and at least theoretically belived their government was the legitimate one for the whole territory, but products made in both were generally distinguished on their labels.
At least from the East German side this was only the case for a short period during the 50s (the idea that there was only "one Germany" - which from the point of view of the GDR and Moscow should of course be a "socialist Germany").
In the 60's and early 70's the GDR dropped this idea and worked towards being recognized as its own souvereign state, and insisted that there are two German states (the GDR and the FRG).
This is brought up often on discussions about Taiwan and China. To be clear, the vast majority of politicians in Taiwan do not actually believe they wield power over mainland China. That Taiwan still calls itself “Republic of China” is because mainland China has made it clear that a name change would be seen as a Declaration of Independence and a trigger for war.
The situation is akin to someone held hostage at gunpoint telling you they’re fine.
Because it would be a provocation to war to change the name to Taiwan. Politicians in Taiwan have tried to change the name and always chickened out because it’s a dumb reason to trigger an invasion.
The Republic of China is or was the official name. The mainlander terrorists overthrew the legitimate government and that government fled to Taiwan. Some revisionism of history now has mainland China the "legitimate" China all due to Tricky Dicky visiting in 1972. The government of mainland China if full of contradictions.
In the EU, Apple posts prices including VAT, just as local regulations require. That's because the EU has this enormous influence over the American company Apple.
Or is it because companies generally tend to follow the law of wherever they operate?
It's not unjust or morally wrong to post prices including VAT, so I have no complaint about Apple doing that. When a foreign country's laws require companies to do things that are unjust or morally wrong, I want companies to choose not to operate there rather than follow them. Similarly, I'd want companies to pull out of Australia rather than backdoor their encryption.
Who is claiming that the primary quality of this article is being "interesting"? Unsurprising evils must still be visible, and it is harmful to try to hide them under the pretense that they are not surprising.
i recently got an electronic product that said 中國 instead of 中国 on the label (traditional vs simplified characters). i wonder if this was meant as a subtle indication that it was from traditional-character land.
We don't have interstellar travel because Apple's suppliers have to meet labeling requirements?
But yes, there are nice things that the money that goes to defense budgets could be spent on, if there weren't authoritarian leaders making irredentist threats against democracies.
U.S. made nuclear submarines are really interesting from that point of view.
We had technology in 1960s to make reactors which need to be refilled once per 15-20 years without significant incidents.
But because of the fear of misuse and technological theft, we have energy crisis.
yeahhh I'm going to need Puerto Rico's parallel tax structure for as long as possible so if we could not alter their territorial status and also keep Congress split on everything that would be greeaaaaat
just keep posting "red waaaave" on your instagram account and "blue waaaave" on your twitter account so that everyone stays in their respective echo chamber, I think at least till 2025 would be good for me, I'll probably have cleared all my US earnings from taxes and left (w/ a different excuse) by then
So US citizens have to pretty much just ignore the entire offshore industry for legal tax avoidance, but fortunately the US offers US citizens many ways to not have a tax bill.
Some US territories have a parallel tax system that isn't underneath the Federal Government, whereas states are under the federal government, so a resident of a state has to pay state taxes as well as federal taxes. Although there are "categories" of types of territories, these categories are pretty much made up on the spot and each territory is its own separate case, as the US only has 5 inhabited territories all with unique tax and citizenship conditions.
Long story short, Puerto Rico has a tax system that is treated like being a foreign country, but checks the box for total Federal US tax compliance.
Under Puerto Rico's "Act 60", which mainland transplants to Puerto Rico can apply for, many transactions are taxed at zero percent, most importantly capital gains (for trades initiated while on the island and sold on the island, pro-rata based on time for longer held positions), while "PR sourced income" is taxed at 5%, or an up-to-4% corporate tax rate (so the same activity done through a corporation is taxed lower, and the dividends are tax free, and the sales of shares are tax free)
So if you want to clear all your money in the eyes of the Federal government, then living a year in PR to execute or finish a specific plan is good.
Congress has a little control over PR, but its more beneficial and easier to perpetuate division in Congress, at least at this class level, than pretend to have some other trendy cause that your friends want you to espouse.
and finally I made a reference to renouncing citizenship. If you leave "for tax purposes" then there exit taxes. So the goal is to keep more of your money at your own discretion, and then leave for any reason that isn't "tax purposes".
It looks to me that this is only shipments from Taiwan to China
> Apple has asked suppliers to ensure that shipments from Taiwan to China strictly comply with Chinese customs regulations after a recent visit by senior U.S. lawmaker Nancy Pelosi to Taipei stoked fears of rising trade barriers.
Am I missing something? I do not see a requirement that all package from Taiwan say they are from China.
You're missing the biggest practical source of fake news: people are absolutely determined to comment on articles after reading only the headline, and headlines optimize for attention-grabbing rather than informativeness. You're completely right about what actually happened here, but the majority of people who see this while it's on the front page are going to walk away confident that Apple did some much more problematic thing.
This is unsurprising. The reality is that the US, China and even much of Taiwan actually or effectively supports the One CHina policy.
It would be suicide for China to invade Taiwan. The economic damage this would do to China is immense. China may well collapse. Aside from that, it's not that easy either. China may well have a much larger military but a sea crossing is no easy feat.
Look at Britain. It hasn't been successfully invaded by sea in almost 1000 years (1066 being th elast time). On a clear day you can see the white cliffs of Dover from Calais (~17 miles across the English Channel) yet the might of Nazi Germany could never cross it.
Even though the US has legislation to protect Taiwan, if push came to shove, the US simply wouldn't trigger a direct war between nuclear powers in the sam eway that the US isn't getting directly involved in Ukraine.
And much of Taiwan is happy with the situation as is. Pushing independence is going to seriously rock the boat.
So everyone is happy with the situation of China having an official policy that Taiwan is part of China without anything actually changing including China.
I'm personally not a fan of Western companies being influenced by the CCP dangling the carrot of access to the Chinese market when it's a mirage. China will never allow a Western company to dominate the Chinese market. Yet we have Hollywood, for example, kowtowing to China.
China really took an L (IMHO) over the Pelosi visit. She's not the first House Speaker to visit (Newt Ginrich being the last ~25 years ago). By taking a public position, China really gave the US no choice but to proceed rather than back down. It's just mishandled all the way.
So we'll have symbolic things like "Made in --Taiwan--China" as retaliation.
The PRC could blockade Taiwan rather than engaging in the enormous task of outright invasion, but you're right, the resulting economic fallout would be immense blowback to them. China's government throughout all this, regardless of Xi's rhetoric, has been engaging in slow and steady, non-disruptive actions. Saber-rattling with military exercises is one thing (there have been multiple Taiwan Strait crises already in past decades), engaging in open war would be hugely disruptive both to the international order and to the international trade that the PRC has built its rise upon.
OTOH, my experience (modest n) is that a fairly large percentage of people are happy to say "Shame on Apple" for such things. Vs. a near-zero percentage are actually willing to avoid buying products made in (mainland) China, or with major components made there.
Talk was cheap long before "Performative Activism" had its own Wikipedia page.
>" Vs. a near-zero percentage are actually willing to avoid buying products made in (mainland) China, or with major components made there."
Personally, I make a sincere effort to buy products that aren't made in China. I've been doing this for years but unfortunately avoiding things made in China is surprisingly difficult. When I end up buying products made in China, it isn't because of a lack of conviction, it is because there was no alternative I could find.
So OP can't shame Apple for this moral behavior because others buy Apple's product?
Would you apply that same standard and does it hold up to other scenarios?
If people were buying textile products from the slave trade, would you say "perhaps" when other (or the same) people shamed those industries for supporting slave labor?
If people were buying nuts and fruit from exploited migrant workers, would you still be able to shame the industries for better conditions or to hire minimal wage workers?
If people were buying cobalt or lithium mined from child slaves would you be able to shame those industries into sourcing minerals in a more humane way even though people buy EVs?
Or because people bought those products those companies/industries have immunity from criticism?
You cannot avoid products made in China because of the current status quo for the same reasons you couldn't avoid textiles made with slave cotton.
That doesn't mean you can't advocate change to the status quo.
OP is free to say "Shame on Apple", boycott Apple, and publicly pray for the gods to smite Apple from On High. If OP's actual interest is in discouraging such corporate behavior, then only the second of those options seems likely to accomplish anything.
Re: Cotton - even if every ill-treated cotton worker suddenly became a well-treated union member, there's still the huge moral problem of how much of the Earth's scarce fresh water and farmland are devoted to growing cotton - when millions of poor people face grim shortages of food and safe water. I admit that being an old geezer makes it easier, but my approach is to buy far fewer new clothes & textile products than the average American. That strategy completely fails to grant me 100% moral purity on the issue. OTOH, it does far more good than fashionable kids decrying the deplorable status quo.
I'm of the belief that Hawaii belongs to the native Hawaiian people who the islands were stolen from by the US one hundred years ago, and whose descendants have been advocating that it be returned to them as a free and independent people and country.
Officially, Taiwan agree to the “One China” stance. They even agree in the 1992 consensus that RoC and PRC does not agree who is the legitimate government of both mainland China and Taiwan islands, but the One China stance itself is not something in dispute.
The constitution of Taiwan claims sovereignty over mainland China, although they added an amendment to differentiate “free area” citizens (Taiwanese) and citizens under control of the “rebellions” (I don’t know if they removed the specific wording yet).
You could argue that Taiwan have to agree to One China by force, as the PRC has made it very clear that the PLA (People’s liberation Army) is invading if Taiwan abandon the stance.
With that in mind, Taiwan and China situation is really similar to a civil war, Taiwan is just a secessionist. And until the situation is resolved, there is nothing wrong with label it “Taiwan, China”
That is never the truth. They threat for armed attack like since forever 'everyday'. To the point people here just outright ignore their claim and do their daily work.
If somebody even be serious about that. Then they would need live in the air-raid shelter everyday. But who would do that?
> similar to a civil war
Hell no, in my 30 years of live, I have nothing to do with PRC at all except saw them on the TV that they will never give up attacking Taiwan.
Thanks for chiming in! Always great to hear perspectives from people actually living in the places being discussed.
If you had to guess, where do you expect TW/CH relations to be in 50 years? Do you still expect there to be disagreement between the two governments on respective borders and sovereignty or will they someday reach a fully amicable agreement?
>With that in mind, Taiwan and China situation is really similar to a civil war, Taiwan is just a secessionist. And until the situation is resolved, there is nothing wrong with label it “Taiwan, China”
this is contrary to nearly everything I have witnessed in my life regarding Taiwan (a place I visited in the earlyish 90s).
This is only a "consensus" between KMT and PRC. Even then the reading is completely different between KMT and PRC. While Taiwan is still called ROC officially, there's no policy on Taiwan or DPP side that there's only one China. DPP's stance is that Taiwan is an independent sovereign nation that is called ROC right now.
> The constitution of Taiwan claims sovereignty over mainland China
The ROC(taiwan) constitution does not define it's territory. In fact, there was a supreme court case regarding this, and the judges' ruling was that this was a major political issue, and thus they could not decide on it.
It's true that there are amendments that define the "free area" for practical purposes, but they do not define what are the other areas.
> With that in mind, Taiwan and China situation is really similar to a civil war, Taiwan is just a secessionist. And until the situation is resolved, there is nothing wrong with label it “Taiwan, China”
This is complete BS propaganda language. The situation of China and Taiwan is pretty much the same as Koreas, the only difference is that the balance between NK and SK isn't that tilted. And the world have no problem labeling Nk and SK differently.
Definitely a Civil War, but it's been going on for almost 100 years. According to Taiwan (NRC), the PRC is an ongoing rebellion. Hindsight being 20/20 Taiwan should have cut its losses back in the 1960s, admitted defeat, and seceded. PRC now has too much military power for that to be a real option.
Technically, wouldn't mainland China/PRC be the secessionist. The ROC was the legitimate government of China until the civil war and now considers itself a government in exile with the PRC illegally occupying the country.
Of course, the entire situation is vastly more complicated because, you know, the Taiwanese natives have their own ideas. And also the various factions have evolved their stances so I think there are like 4 or 5 different possibilities being tossed around.
Amazing sum up, thanks. Just though, I'd say that neither is a secessionist (both want 'one china'). And technically the PRC is a bunch of rebels that are illegally preventing the Taiwan govt from exercising their democratic mandate.
As someone who has spent a significant amount of time living in Taiwan.
These facts grossly do not represent the reality of today. In minimizing Taiwan sovereignty you hurt a whole nation of people only to benefit a terrible regime saving face.
This should honestly be picked up by a larger news organization. If the US is serious about protecting Taiwan and bringing more chips to the US, Apple should be shamed for choosing Chinese profits. Imagine if Apple told Ukraine employees to label Russia on their badges.
Well, an alternative interpretation would be that Apple (like much of the world) is in a no-win situation because an assumption that they had (like much of the world) was that investment, fair trade, and bringing China into the established international organizations would result in liberalization (within reason) of China and that they'd be a full partner in global stability. The grand bargain. But instead the CCP rejected that and undermined global good will, and now the prior assumptions are no longer valid and so it will take a long time to decouple. Of course, nobody knows if Apple (and other companies) have that intention, but it's a reasonable counter-balance to the interpretation that they are "choosing Chinese profits".
And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too.
Apple has spent many years happily profiting from cheap Chinese manufacturing, labor, electrial engineering expertise and supply chains to the point where they are now completely beholden to a foreign country. A country whose increasing rivalry with the US in economic power and geopolitical influence (along with increased tensions) has been clear for well over a decade.
Apple is diversifying a bit into India and elsewhere (Vietnam I think?), but China could throw Apple into a huge crisis tomorrow if they were cut off, since it would take years to ramp up capacity elsewhere, and sourcing many of the components would be next to impossible.
And Apple really couldn't blame anyone but themselves for it.
It also seems to me like the are diversifying more because India demanded it and for price, rather than tho reduce dependencies ok China. But that's just unqualified guesswork.
> Apple has spent many years happily profiting from cheap Chinese manufacturing, labor, electrial engineering expertise and supply chains to the point where they are now completely beholden to a foreign country.
Up to a point there's a cost advantage, but Tim Cook has also pointed that Apple uses Chinese factories because it allows them to take advantage of the local manufacturing capabilities, which are substantial. [0] In fact to hear him tell it those capabilities are simply not available elsewhere. I take him at his word on this topic at least.
Tim Cook also invested a third of a trillion dollars in China because they did not have the manufacturing capabilities to build the iPhone how Apple wanted at the time of the investment. [1]
And Cook mocked the US because we didn't have the right tooling to make screws for his Mac pro, he went all over the news and kept spewing how bad our industrial sector was.
One of the tooling engineers that had previously worked with Apple before they were offshored said, "Well, we couldn't wait around for him to come back to us, we have to eat too so we switched to making different things. He's welcome to invest in our production and we'll make whatever he wants"
A somewhat warped understanding on "manufacturing capabilities".
While Apple may have had to spend money setting up the specific assembly line, fabrication plants, train staff, etc because they simply didn't exist prior to their requirement, the fact that they were able to set it up someplace, and continuously feed raw materials, parts, labour etc with dozens of redundant suppliers for EACH component, is what indicates manufacturing capability.
Manufacturing is more ecosystem than "capability".
> In fact to hear him tell it those capabilities are simply not available elsewhere.
This is a huge overlooked factor in all of the debate regarding the supply chain.
You can't "just move" manufacturing capabilities from one place to another, and debate the labor costs. Rather, probably more importantly, there's actually a _skills supply_ problem.
People will learn the skills if the demand exists. That's what China did and Americans can do it too if multinational companies support US manufacturing.
America doesn't allow the labor or environmental manufacturing conditions that allow China to compete so effectively. We need border adjustments such that goods coming from countries with lesser labor or environmental protections cost more and those coming from countries with better labor/environmental protections cost less (it also has to be transitive so China can't just launder their products through the Czech Republic--i.e., the Czech Republic would have to have a similar border adjustment policy in order to qualify).
Companies don't have to buy from the lowest bidder. Apple could choose to support manufacturing in countries with better labor/environmental protections without any new laws.
I think border adjustments are also a good idea, but I won't give Apple a free pass for choosing to support such poor manufacturing conditions just to make more profit.
Consumers don't have any transparency into labor or environmental conditions. We can't even see a bill of materials for our products much less information on the labor or environmental conditions. The problem is systemic--the rules incentivize bad outcomes; litigating blame is pointless and distracting: fix the rules and move on.
> That is not true. We all know China has poor environmental protections and low wages, and yet we choose to buy products made in China.
It's 100% true, and we often buy from China because overwhelmingly there simply aren't alternatives, the alternatives are prohibitively difficult to find, the alternative is another developing country with similar labor and environmental policies, or the alternative is laundered through a country with good regulation (a car is "manufactured" in America but all of its components--the bulk of its value--are produced in developing countries without regulation).
> And those consumers are also voters. The rules won't be fixed because most people don't care either as consumers or as voters.
Right, but they don't have the same access to politicians that corporations do. This is a different and worse systemic problem. Moreover, corporations run campaigns to shift public opinion away from effectual policy. In the 70s bottling companies ran campaigns which argued, as you are arguing, that litter was a consumer problem rather than a industrial problem (e.g., the "crying Indian" advert). The cigarette industry ran a campaign that insisted that the high rate of home fires are caused by a deficiency of highly carcinogenic flame retardants in home furnishings. Similarly, the fossil fuel industry currently runs campaigns which seek to make climate change an issue of personal responsibility ("we don't need legislation, we just need consumers to decide to switch to veganism and give up their cars").
> But a few powerful people could create huge changes all on their own. Hold them responsible is not pointless, it's our best hope for change.
I strongly disagree. Our best hope for change is public policy, notably border adjustments. If you want to protest at Cupertino, be my guest but that's wholly inadequate.
More disposable bottles and fossil fuels are sold now than ever before. You can still buy cigarettes, and they're still as poisonous and addictive as ever, but most people don't want to buy them anymore.
Public policy worked in 0/3 cases. Changing consumer behavior worked in 1/3.
There was a national campaign against tobacco. Moreover, no one is accidentally buying cigarettes like they’re buying carbon. It’s not like cigarettes were added to every product in unknown quantities and the public managed to avoid purchasing them. Similarly, people can’t simply opt out of carbon—it’s not like people were previously waltzing up to the counter and asking for some carbon, and now they’re not doing it any more. If that’s your “personal responsibility” example, it’s pretty desperate.
India and Vietnam, which are already sites of Apple production, are among the countries being seen as an alternative option to China[1]. However, parts for iPhone, iPad and Macs come from around the globe and are assembled in China, India and Vietnam. Apple depends upon a global supply chain to make final products. The production of the iPhone doubled this year in India because of ongoing geo-tension and strict lockdowns in China. However, that is just 7% of production iPhones. Anyway, I hope China and the USA reach some middle ground and keep Taiwan safe. Any war between these two giant countries would disaster the world economy and escalate to world war 3.
This is the situation for the rest of the chip industry besides Intel, who also uses Taiwan TSMC fabs for some of their side operations (see Arc GPUs). Not just computer chips either, 37% of U.S. clothing imports are from China[0], for example.
I think so. I think the disagreement is in how to deal with the problem. Obviously tariffs are a terrible idea (if you think about it for more than a couple minutes). Alternatives like mandating exporters meet environmental and employment standards that meet or exceed ours would probably make a good sized dent.
At the same moment, the rest of the works is realizing the fact that us pretty much dictates what happens around the world.
Want to build your own x86 Chios? Guess what? You can't because Intel/and won't let you and even if they did , if it were one of the "not our allies list" people, the govt will step in.
Same for Netherlands fab machine makers. They dictate who can they sell to or not..
That is why nations are investing in stuff like risc-v.
Tomorrow MasterCard/visa can be "ordered by govt " to pull out of a country and suddenly their card economy collapses. Unless they have an alternative, like India does with rupay or UPI which is being exported to other countries as a technology they can locally implement.
Same for stuff like aws or Google or github or basically the entire american internet giants.
You know if tomorrow whatsapp is ordered to stop service in say India what will happen? Without a local alternative already in place, WhatsApp and ipso facto us govt can literally hold that country for ransom. Whatsapp is a silly example but think about it.
Sure China is bad for labour but its not like Americans aren't fighting anszon for Union rights or for $15/hour pay and benefits? I'm not trying to say they are equal, just that its a spectrum.
For non Americans and non Chinese, Be it India or Russia or Iran, these two nations are just as offensive in different manners and it's just a matter of perspective
I get what you're saying; the US is far from the shining example of what a democracy should look like.
On the other side of that coin, though, China is taking us for a ride. Politically speaking, it's unwise to continue giving them power over our supply chain. Ultimately it's a monster fight with no real winners, but ensuring that world superpowers stay competitive with one another is how we prevent mutually assured destruction. Even for China's allies, I fail to see how hamstringing the CCP is a bad thing.
> but China could throw Apple into a huge crisis tomorrow if they were cut off, since it would take years to ramp up capacity elsewhere.
Would not be painless for China though. The thing about trade is, it’s trade. While Apple and American consumers benefit, so does China or obviously they wouldn’t trade. They’re not making our phones as a charity to us.
China has the 2nd largest military budget but only spends 1.7% GDP on it vs the global average of 2.2% and US at 3.5%. India the worlds 3rd largest spender is between them at 2.7% GDP, and #4 the UK spends 2.2% GDP.
China has the second largest military spending in the world, second only to the US. What's more, you really need to look at purchasing power parity (PPP). Basically, it costs less to do things in China, and that really matters for military spending. For example, soldiers in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) receive far lower salaries than the equivalent US personnel. It's hard to figure out the true impact of this, but it's important to acknowledge. One article about this is here: https://voxeu.org/article/why-military-purchasing-power-pari... - which argues that US military spending is basically equal to Russia+China once that's considered. Also, there's geography to consider. If China is attacking next-door-neighbors while the US is trying to defend an ally at long distance, it would necessarily cost the US much more. All of this makes comparing military spending much more complicated, as well as depressing. It's my hope that military adventurism will be avoided.
I'm not sure the past ten months have been the greatest time for the argument that Russia gets almost a third of the US's military value after adjusting for PPP.
While the amount of spending money has an effect, wisely spending the money pre-war and wisely executing war plans is obviously critical. Russia is demonstrating the weakness from widespread corruption (they got stuck on roads because they did not invest in logistics and on maintaining their vehicles), combined with spectacularly poor planning in the initial attack. It would be unwise to assume China will make such mistakes.
Anyway, it is my hope that war does not break out. The one guarantee about war is many deaths.
> China has the 2nd largest military budget but only spends 1.7% GDP on it
Not really sure that comparisons of either GDP or state spending on a purpose as a share of it (even if GDP were comparable) are as meaningful as people pretend across regimes with vastly different degrees of state/industry integration both generally (because of effect on GDP measures) or in the field of interest (because of effects on spending measures.)
Unfortunately, there's not good alternative measures, either.
What about the NATO requirement to spend 2% of GDP on defense? Isn't it strategic for the US to spend disproportionately more on the military to support allies' militaries (e.g., South Korea) and prevent the rise of competing superpowers?
That 1.7% that China spends is probably equivalent (or more) to the 3.5% that the US spends. China steals the intellectual property that the US pays for. China takes advantage of lax environmental and green energy laws the the US military and supporting businesses must conform to. China takes advantage of near slave labor to build it’s weapons of war. It’s much economical for China to wage war than the United States.
Another thing to note is China is not just producer but huge consumer of Apple products. India with its rather small population of folks who can really afford Apple products, and primitive manufacturing capabilities at scale compare to China is going to remain minor distraction for at least couple of decades.
So sensible diversification is in distant future than many imagine.
I am glad that there is native manufacturing, but let's but that in perspective:
Apple doesn't publish units-sold figures, but Iphone revenue is 5x that of Macs [0].
The Mac Pro is the least popular Mac. Again, I don't have number breakdowns, but Apple did say in the most recent keynote that launched the M2 Macbook Air that the Macbook Air, and the 13" Macbook Pro are their 2 most popular models.
So it's safe to say the Mac Pro represents an extreme fraction of Apple manufacturing.
> And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too.
I don't buy Chinese goods just because they're cheaper. I only do so when there's no choice to buy the same kind of product from anywhere else. For example, try to find a power bank made somewhere other than China.
Sooo I'd just say I'm not really "never buy anything made in China", my comment was more geared toward if you're going to criticize Apple for making things in China, ostensibly for political reasons, that doesn't excuse your own buying of things made in China, particularly when you have options (power banks notwithstanding).
For a large amount of products consumers don't have a choice, or it's hard to know. Many products simply aren't made in western countries any more because the work was all shipped overseas, regardless of what the average citizen wanted.
I would bet that many shoppers buying products fullfilled by Amazon, an American company, don't realize that they are buying from China 99% of the time.
I think there are a number of American-made or western-made products on the market. Everything from plates and dishes from Costa Nova to barbells from Rogue Fitness to honey from apiaries in Pennsylvannia. I’m not sure but I think Patagonia produces a lot of their clothing outside of China as well. An iPhone? Not so much today, but that doesn’t have to be true forever.
I think the case is that most people don’t actually care, and most people can’t be bothered to look at the origin of the products they’re buying. And I think unfortunately most people would rather have a $1,000 iPhone instead of an $1,800 iPhone.
It’s kind of like gas prices. You see the reaction once they went higher. Frankly I think it’s bewildering how cheap gas is considering what it is, what goes into producing the product, and what it takes to get it to the gas pumps. And that says nothing of the negative externalities of course. But cheaper than a gallon of milk from a farmer nearby? Always surprising to me. Every time I think about it I think the “real” price is probably like $30-$40/gallon.
> Isn't the problem that online sellers (e.g., Amazon) usually don't tell you this on the website, so you have no way of finding out until it arrives?
I’d say the problem is when you (not you specifically) claim to care about buying things that are made in China and then not do any basic research on the products and their origin. Also just don’t buy from online retailers like Amazon. It’s just a digital Wal-Mart.
> This is only true because the government holds the price of milk artificially high.
In other words: arc of history nonsense. What should have been clear and is clear if you think about human nature for two seconds or that CCP interests do not represent Chinese interests.
Why?
Because it’s a single-party dictatorship and because the interests of the State are subordinate to the interests of the people who control the State. That’s true in America too, which is why we have elections and transfers of power, and though our elections are fair and free by a reasonable metric, the deck is still stacked in favor of those who already have power. The PRC has nothing resembling the peaceful transfer of power and therefore the only means of transferring power within the PRC as it is constituted today are less than peaceful.
> Well, an alternative interpretation would be that Apple (like much of the world) is in a no-win situation
It's a weak excuse for a company that builds its image in last 5 years as a morally superior one. Apple was very happy to heavily impact online advertising business (not saying it was a bad thing), because of those principles (and to give them huge edge to grow their business later in that area). But they are not willing to stand up for other causes, where it impacts their bottom line.
"Liberalization" in trade was always a farce. The US itself always had applied tariffs and importation quotas to even its closest trade partners and allies. "Free trade" is a PR speak that is used when pressuring other governments to open up their economy. Not your own.
Does it? Didn't it enjoy the power to print infinite amounts of money thanks to oil trade being done exclusively in dollars just until a few months ago? Something which no other civilization, less, society, enjoyed ever in human history?
> The only way to not be complicit is to not have a phone. China makes them all.
Not exactly:
Librem 5 USA: "The Freedom and Privacy of the Librem 5, plus Made in the USA Electronics with a Secure Supply Chain." https://puri.sm/products/librem-5-usa/
Well what would you expect? Lol that's the whole point! What you're saying is you care more about price than you do where the product is made. That's fine, but just be honest with yourself about it.
I am completely fine paying $2000 if I feel like it is a decent product. The problem is I don't think it is good enough to actually use on a regular basis. I wouldn't even pay the non-US price ($1300) for the US version.
Some of these things may have been fixed, but last time I looked there were multiple issues that make it a deal breaker. The battery life is not good, the phone is huge, app compatibly is not good, cooling issues, etc.
I prefer to buy Western made products even if they cost quite a bit more money. I just want to get a decent product for the price and I don't think the Librem 5 is worth anywhere near the price.
Keep in mind, the Nokia bricks of the days of yore. They were still fully functional telecommunication devices. Just because the Librem is probably a glorified Raspberry Pi doesn't mean it isn't worth investing in to help grow the domestic supply chain.
The world is bound by Physics and miracles facilitated by networks. When faced with a toxic hub node, you route around, and reinforce alternative routes.
The vast majority of Samsung phones are made in Vietnam, India, and South Korea. Samsung Mobile no longer owns factories in China, though they may or may not contract out manufacturing for low end phones for the local China market.
One option is to vote for politicians to increase tariffs or ban imports from China, but that would make the voters’ products/services more expensive. At the end of the day, the politician that wins elections is the politician that delivers lower priced goods/services to the voters.
It was the consumer's choice on what to buy and where to buy it from. But demand for low prices, regardless of where and how things are manufactured (overseas and in sweatshops) and lack of demand for accountability in the 1980s and 1990s when manufacturers shipped jobs and work overseas that resulted in where we are. Consumers always have choice, we've just made self-serving short-term choices.
I don’t know exactly where the line is when it comes to who’s responsibility it is about “products made in China” but I would make the argument that trying to push decisions focused around things like national security, geopolitics, macroeconomics etc down to the consumer level is basically a bullshit move.
Regular people don’t have the right level of knowledge to make those decisions and it’s not realistic to expect that of them. I would much rather talk about the party who not only had the right level of information but was also the one who actively made the decisions that lead to this situation to begin with.
At the end of the day Apple have a lot more to answer for than regular consumers.
> It was the consumer's choice on what to buy and where to buy it from
I'm sorry, can you remind me when companies offered the same product made outside of China and in China, as an alternative choice? The companies decided to go offshore, not the consumers.
Apple is always in a win situation for themselves. They win from cheap labor (China labor, low US prices). They win from large markets (China). They win from keeping unions out of their sweatshops. They win by imposing their large will on dependent suppliers. In what way is Apple NOT winning? There's nothing no-win about this for Apple. they know exactly how to win, whether or not anyone else does.
There was a Chinese liberalization, they got tenfold higher GDP per capita and they relaxed about some stuff that were necessities during poverty. Like punishments.
In the Cultural Revolution I remember one story about a village thief, dedicated parasite with lies passing blame and finding people's precious last reserves. You guys don't know because generally the user on HN has never felt hunger. In particular the nuance, this is marathon hunger, at a national level, long-term malnutrition under difficult work conditions. Can't say anything about it, so doggerel (like sarcastic songs, sung collectively on the field like Negro spirituals). Millions did everything right and died anyway. These thieves were cold-blooded murderers most of the time. Attempted murder in the best light.
So. The village catches him one day, really catches him and it's bad[1]. And takes him to a giant of shit. He won't open his mouth unconditionally so they open it with tongs, they feed him that shit mmm nice and full that's what you get for stealing our food, why didn't you tell us you wanted to eat our food? This is our food! He died two weeks later.
Nowadays it would be much more lax, because he wouldn't be cheating and stealing from people who are barely hanging on from starvation so...a caning for instance.
Yeah like that American in Singapore who got caned, I knew a teacher who had taught at the international school he went to and he was just BEGGING for it not just ASKING for it like WRITING LETTERS TO SANTA like how can I fuck these locals off to the point they carry out corporal punishment like I don't need to follow any law country I live because the punishment is caning and they can't cane me because I'm an American, it will make news, no amount of any anything no matter how many cops tell me what. And he did, and they did, and it did. Petulant bitchvictim.
You know I've heard stereotypes and actually met Chinese and would say...many are strictly insulting of their poverty, and slandering their correct and successful approaches for getting out of it.
Nobody sympathizes with the concept of starvation. Too well-fed to understand.
[1] I've heard a similar story about a thief on an American submarine, hard to catch but when they do catch the thief oh man.
Well, Germany is now being ridiculed for thinking that investment, fair trade (e.g. buying Russian gas), and bringing Russia into the established international organizations would result in its liberalization. Actually for China the writing has been on the wall far longer than for Russia (remember Tienanmen Square?), but hey, China is a much more important economic player than Russia, so let's continue ignoring it...
A smartphone is probably the quintessential "Chinese only" product.
Nevertheless, there is one smartphone made in the USA (Librem 5). None of its parts appear to be sourced by Chinese companies, but some of the parts manufacturers have factories in China (I would not be too surprised to find out that the Samsung front-camera is made in China, for example). I can't say for sure that it's lacks any china-manufactured items in it, but it's at least pretty darn close.
I don't have one because I don't want to spend $1300 on a phone. If that's not me choosing cheaper Chinese goods, then I don't know what is.
I sure didn't vote to permit labor and environmental arbitrage, to usher in Dutch Disease. It was painfully obvious what would happen, who would win and who would lose, but the money swooped in and demonstrated who really owns the country.
It's wild to watch the people who pushed for it slide down the Narcissist's Creed. It's fine! Oh, it's not fine? Then it isn't a problem. Oh, it is a problem? Then it isn't a big deal. Oh, it is a big deal? Then it's not my fault. Oh, it is my fault? Well, I didn't mean it. Oh, I did mean it? Well then you deserved it.
I wasn't included in the many and various board meetings across all companies to make the decision to move production... In fact, I wasn't in any. And to be quiet frank, I probably was born yet for many of them or still shitting myself in a diaper.
Sure, but you can today buy more expensive products that are not made in China if that's of concern to you. Of course there are some products for which there are no alternatives right now, but that doesn't stop you from making economic decisions that align with your stated values. Continuing to buy Chinese products and then saying you have no agency because some nebulous entity made a decision for you is just cognitive dissonance.
Did you learn nothing from the Prisoner's Dilemma?
We don't actually have any options that leverage massive economies of scale and manufacture in the US, because our masters chose to ship the manufacturing overseas. Individual agency is trumped by control of the rules, that's the whole point of PD. Pretending that our wallets have agency is a con to fool us out of using the tool that would actually be effective: regulation.
You can enact regulation (which takes time, and which I support) and also buy things that aren't made in China right now. This same thing applies to environmental considerations as well. You don't need to wait for the government to ban plastic bags for you to stop using them. Both can happen together.
Such regulation doesn't just take time, it's basically politically unfeasible given how both entrenched interests (businesses) and the individual voter are incentivized towards cost-savings. It's essentially like calling for raising taxes- not literally impossible, but virtually so.
You're setting up an ethical dilemma that is always going to default to one direction, and castigating those who don't go the impossible route. This is "If you don't like this government, why don't you move to another country?" or "If you don't like this platform, why don't you build one?" levels of impracticality.
All I see is the cognitive dissonance of worshipping the free market, except in this case where corporate America sold the future of US away in exchange for higher profit margins today.
Plus the cognitive dissonance of government action being unpalatable yet also required, since maximum profit-seekers (the highest motive possible in the system we have set up) aren't incentivized to do anything else.
So all you’re telling me is “you have no options, there’s nothing that can be done, and nothing will change”. What’s the point of that? If that’s the case why bother caring?
If it’s politically impossible to do something that’s all the more reason for personal change. Sure you can’t buy a MacBook that isn’t made in China, but you can spend more money and buy other things made outside of China.
I don't know, you're the one who started with the "And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too" defeatism in the first place! And then turning around and condemning people for buying Chinese goods when 1) legislation for reducing trade dependence on China is very difficult, leading to 2) few consumer choices that have non-Chinese made alternatives in many product areas.
Everyone choosing cheaper goods is just an observation. And yea, most people were very happy to buy cheap stuff from retailers and they are in fact complicit because they want their cheap goods. And yea, most people even today would choose cheaper goods over goods sourced in western countries.
As a point of contention, I don't like the grandstanding I'm observing over stuff "made in China", especially here where we can all choose to buy products made in western countries and pay more money for those. Are there exceptions? Sure! But just because Apple makes the iPhone in China doesn't mean you can't buy a barbell made in Ohio or cast iron skillets made in Tennessee.
What agency do we have? Consumer choice only goes as far as the options available. What computer or phone can you buy that isn’t made under dubious or known-bad labour conditions? The option of no phone or no computer is only generally an option if you have the money to not require a job at all
> But instead the CCP rejected that and undermined global good will
Can you elaborate on this? This feels a very US centric view. The US itself has repeatedly failed to comply with its own 'rules-based order', whilst expecting other powers to comply.
The mistake that you're making is suggesting that this rules based order must mean that all countries adhere to it 100% of the time. But there are gray areas, mistakes, things that are subject to interpretation, and frankly there are areas where countries disagree. The point is that it's mostly adhered to.
If you are looking for specific examples and further elaboration, frankly I can't provide that for you and you'll have to look at global events and decide for yourself.
The US heavily supported Taiwan before they were a democracy (first free elections in 1995; before that they were a military dictatorship). Our support seems to be geostrategic and for capitalism (or in other cases for access to natural resources), with democracy being ancillary. Saudi Arabia is one of our biggest allies.
If Taiwan didn't have anything to offer they'd have to rely on Brad Pitt or something instead of the US military, like Tibet.
The US values many things in its foreign policy, and some of those things are spreading democracy and self-determination. That doesn’t mean the US values them to the exclusion of other interests like trade partnerships, energy security, regional stability, and military alliances.
Countries in the US sphere of influence tend to drift toward becoming democracies, in part because of the influence of free trade. Both Taiwan and South Korea started off as dictatorships propped up by the military backing of the US to contain the spread of communism, and eventually transitioned to democratic government.
As for Tibet, if it were on an island and could have been defended by the US Navy, I’m sure it would still be independent. Even if it were merely coastal it might still be independent. But it’s landlocked and mountainous, and hard to defend from the other side of the world. The invasion was also rapid, and happened at the same time the international community was responding to the invasion of South Korea.
> The US values many things in its foreign policy, and some of those things are spreading democracy and self-determination.
I think they are valued, but ancillary.
> As for Tibet, if it were on an island and could have been defended by the US Navy, I’m sure it would still be independent.
I think at that point Tibet would be geostrategic. If they were in Antarctica and our Navy could defend we may be considerably less likely to unless there was oil exploration going on or it was an important position for an airbase.
Well, in all fairness, it is a powerful way to change the topic while also getting people to sow doubt in a major source of your criticism in the first place, in political contexts.
Plus it comes across as a bit of a juvenile debate tactic, IMO. I certainly became a bit of a "whataboutist" when I was younger and coming to terms of realizing that the U.S. is not "the land of the free" and that they, too, can lie.
But at a certain point you realize that things aren't great but that things elsewhere can be even less great.
And then hearing the same stuff I spouted in that whataboutist phase just kinda makes me want to hit the eject button. It's just going nowhere fast.
Frankly, I consider stuff like that to basically fall under the umbrella of "useful idiot" plays. You don't need to be a jingoistic McCarthy to feel like this kind of aimless undermining of the US government helps keep things like voter turnout and trust low, both of which are easily exploited.
Not that there isn't interesting comparisons to make, but "oh, and like the US follows the rules?" when talking about a country with Skynet and maps claiming disputed territory in this day and age, just feels a little disingenuous.
I understand what you're saying, but let's see the other side:
I -- like many others in tech and even in HN -- don't live in the US, and don't have any obligations towards the democratic system they have over there, or their government, just like the US has been historically a mixed bag towards us Latin Americans, often undermining our own democratic institutions when they weren't aligned with Washington or various American business.
So yes, I wish you the best of democracies, hopefully one that is respectful of other countries choices and sovereignty, but I'm not responsible for it, and if my criticisms undermine US democracy or their electoral system, then how weak must they really be!
So with fresh Latin American eyes, a lot of what the US says and does reeks of hypocrisy. It's not "Whataboutism" to remind everyone about this, every time a government official says something about China, Russia or whatever country "not following the rules", ignoring or rejecting international treaties, or using threat of military force to achieve their goals. "Well, yeah" -- we can claim with knowledge of our history -- "but the US also does this."
And it's not a "rebellious phase" or Whataboutism, it's a very apt remark.
Stopping all conversations about this because "now we are talking about Afghanistan/Russia/China/Saudi Arabia, not the US!" feels lazy to me.
I suppose it is a bit of a "mind your own damn business" thing of me to have said it that way, but for what it's worth (and as embarrassing as it may be, considering it's various low ratings compared to it's "middle power" brethren) the US is still barely hanging on to the torch for anti-authoriarian poster child duties, and is easily the biggest obstacle for some other large powers that appear to have an even less stellar track record.
That being said, there might also be some soft spots considering how practically duct taped together this country has been since, always. It's...a unique situation, all things considered.
To be honest though, it still doesn't feel too productive unless the audience still holds an overly optimistic assessment of the whatabout, and even then, it's a bit...Lacking. I'm not sure, it feels like I'm lowering the standards expected overall if I'm simply comparing levels of shitiness relative to other levels of shitiness.
I will say one thing: I really appreciate you replying to me politely and keeping this civil. I understand this is a sensitive topic and I appreciate being able to discuss it, and even disagree, without this turning into a flamewar.
Isn't Apple's stance exactly what the US government does: formally not recognizing Taiwan, while at the same time working with them? Everyone is a little bit angry, but nobody so much that they do something about it.
And as long as the US doesn't formally recognize Taiwan, "made in Taiwan" shouldn't even be considered formally correct in the US, even if the issue with Chinese enforcement around this label didn't exist
This is correct. The US does not recognize Taiwan as an independent country. The Taiwanese government doesn't recognize itself as a separate country from mainland China. I guess some people want Apple to have some US ultra-jingoist Opium Wars attitude to China that the US (aside from perhaps Pelosi) does not.
The whole point of Taiwan's stance is that "Are the people of Taipei/Taiwan broadly Chinese, as a matter of culture and national history?" and "Should Taiwan be free from the CCP?" can in fact be separate questions. To many Taiwanese, support for "Taiwan independence" would be tantamount to denying their history and self-experienced identity. A very real sort of oppression.
> To many Taiwanese, support for "Taiwan independence" would be tantamount to denying their history and self-experienced identity. A very real sort of oppression.
Source?
I have Taiwanese sources stating the exact opposite. The Taiwanese youth does not want to be seen as Chinese.
After WWII, Germany lost a large section of their Eastern Territory to Poland, and everyone from there was resettled within the new German borders. Those people were furious, and as a result German policy was to demand that territory back, and a refusal to recognize the new borders. A couple decades later a lot of the people who grew up there had died of old age, and the new generation had no relation to the old territory. As a result public sentiment changed, and Germany publicly recognized the new borders when it was politically advantageous.
Taiwan is probably going through the same process, just a bit slower since it's not just about territory but about national identity. Each generation weakens the ties to the old "Chinese" identity and strengthens a "Taiwanese" identity, until a tipping point is reached.
Nowadays both Germany and Poland are part of the EU, and people have freedom of movement in both territories. So if anyone wants to move to their "historical" homeland, they can easily do so. Interestingly, this is also partly the case wrt. the PRC and Taiwan, as a result of the One China policy.
Asking for sources while not providing the ones you claim to have is kind of ironic.
If you check Taiwanese opinion polls https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963 you'll see that there's a plurality of opinions. People who want independence outnumber people who want unification, but the majority prefers to keep the status quo, for now or forever.
I am not naming people I know personally, especially not in this context. There is no irony, I am telling you, that there is a Taiwanese source behind my statement. I would have been happy with the same statement from OP.
It amazes me how quickly people online are willing to start ww3. It seems like it's not the world leaders we have to worry about, it's the fucking commenters.
Yes it should be picked up but the US can't just go in swinging with China. Nobody wins.
When open conflict with China would also "end the world" the exact same could be applied to OP. You want a world in which China is not appeased, and you're okay with ending it all if that's what it takes.
I don’t think it would be ww3 as China would get roflstomped by US and Japan.
They might take Taiwan though and ruin the global economy for a few decades.
But I’m not seeing how this gets to be ww3 and not a regional war of just blowing shit up with missles. I don’t think Europe, Africa or South America would get involved unless China fired icbms or bobbed Hawaii or something.
China’s military just isn’t strong enough yet. Maybe in 20-50 years.
I agree that China can't project military force far outside China. But they don't have to, a large portion of the world's population and manufacturing capacity is in their neighborhood. If they take over Taiwan, occupy Vietnam and get countries like Laos and Thailand which have good relations with China on their side, then other countries might join against China to protect their interests and supply lines.
Meanwhile the US has failed to roflstomp much smaller and weaker countries that didn't prepare for this exact scenario. China can't take the war to the US, but they can defend their costal waters and core territory longer than the US can maintain popular support for a war.
China has done an awesome job in building a military that can win a war for Taiwan. They have a very strong integrated air defense system, enough short range missiles to effectively deny the South China Sea to surface vessels and enough long range missiles to crater all of the nearby airfields the US would use in any such conflict. It's not clear they could successfully invade, but can they sink any ship bringing food into Taiwan? Probably, and realistically that's all they need to do to win.
On the flip side, what can the US do to get China to stop fighting if they don't want to give up? An invasion couldn't possibly take over the whole country and might trigger a nuclear reprisal, a blockade would take longer to work against China than Taiwan, and the economic consequences would hit the US quite hard. How many Americans want to buy war bonds and go on rationing to protect Taiwan? Especially with the current political polarization?
I don't think it's a sure fire win for China, but it's already in the realm of plausibility.
Wasn't that after removing the infamous "Taiwan Is Part Of China" from the Taiwan Fact Sheet, and the proposal for expansion of military aid to Taiwan? That old lady is also the US House Speaker, second in line for POTUS succession among other things.
China does look very weak when they behave exactly like North Korea does. They think it's a show of strength, and in a way it is, but it's also a dangerous weakness stemming from fear and insecurity, the kind that may start WW3 some day, and China and particularly the CCP will be wiped off the face of the earth, along with a lot of us.
> The order of succession specifies that the office passes to the vice president; if the vice presidency is simultaneously vacant, or if the vice president is also incapacitated, the powers and duties of the presidency pass to the speaker of the House of Representatives
As you stated there are many steps before Pelosi is in a position to "push the button." Xi today at this vary moment is practicing/simulating the murder of the people in Taiwan so he can complete his grand vision of 'unifying' 'China'.
One is using words and the other weapons. We should not tolerate such attempts to stifle an open dialog. I know it's popular now to say 'words are violence,' but at the end of the day they are still not military drills and missile launches.
Xi's posture is one of murder. Pelosi's (who I don't agree with on most things) is one of democratic freedom for the people of Taiwan.
People trying to compare the threat level of Pelosi speeches to Xi missile launches are almost unbelievable in their level of sophistry.
That is where you would be wrong. People in the US are free to talk all they want about fantastical topics.
In fact, in Texas people make political comments about independence frequently.
In Puerto Rico, there have even been literal votes, where the people actually voted on what they want to do with this US territory, and independence was one of the options.
Further examples of these topics coming up, are the frequent comments I hear about how california, or pacific states should form up and create their own country.
And to give a more historical example, I believe a couple decades ago, there was a major Alaska independence party. This party actually even won a governorship, at one point!
People who claim that the topic of states leaving the US, is some taboo topic, that will get you sent to jail, or start a war, if people simply talk about it, are just wrong.
You are just wrong. People talk about this stuff, all the time, and there have even been official votes on this stuff. And wars aren't started over it.
> People in the US are free to talk all they want about fantastical topics.
It's one thing to talk between US people on various topics. Another is for head of foreign state to covertly enter your country and espouse a topic that's controversial and could cause problems for you down the line.
> And to give a more historical example
To give a more recent historical example. Election of Donald Trump. And the role Russia played. Steele dossier non-whistanding.
From what I gather, merely buying up trolls and doing some marketing was enough for US to have hissy fit, over it.
It's not just talking though! Instead it is actual votes, in actual territories, about becoming independent from the US. Like the votes that have happened in Puerto Rico.
If there was a vote in Taiwan, and they voted to officially say that they are independent (although they are independent already, they just haven't officially said so), I can assure you that the mainland would not treat such a case as how we literally have allowed Puerto Rico to have such votes.
That's why this is a false equivalence. In Puerto Rico we literally have allowed independence votes. Whereas regarding Taiwan, if they change the name on an embassy, China threats to bomb them, even though Taiwan is already independent, and this has been the case for 70 years.
This sad orientalism: neither China nor Russia are some weird state machines that are "provoked" or "forced" to do anything, or kids that we have to constantly placate to not start crying in the middle of the mall.
Any aggression, like Russian one is only and purely a result of their own choices and they are the one to bear consequences.
How is this even remotely a provocation justifying this kind of response? It‘s a diplomatic gesture confirming the US‘s support for the decades old de-facto status quo. China‘s insistence on their power fantasy is the permanent provocation here.
Apple's market cap is $2.7 trillion. How hard could it be for them to get a few nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and tell China, "We refuse to comply with your labeling requirements. Just try to stop us"?
Apple has about $40 billion cash on hand. A nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is about $10 billion, plus another 6 billion for the aircraft (taking a Nimitz class with 90 Super Hornets). Add in ammunition, crew, training, support craft, operational expenses. Buying more than one would seriously strain Apple's budget.
And all of that to expose it to China's anti-ship missiles and dare them to shoot. Seems like a terrible way to spend that money.
>It amazes me how quickly people online are willing to start ww3.
Ya, and if that happens, expect a draft. The US military is having difficulty finding volunteers. They'll need a whole lot of soldiers, sailors and marines if we went all out with China.
>It seems like it's not the world leaders we have to worry about, it's the fucking commenters.
Pelosi was quite bold in her little stunt recently with Taiwan. She's willing to send our boys and girls to war for a political stunt is pretty disgusting. I'm done with all these war mongers.
I wonder what she was really trying to accomplish.
Also, seems some people stole $6B from Chinese banks. One of the accused was allowed to flee to the US.
> Pelosi was quite bold in her little stunt recently with Taiwan. She's willing to send our boys and girls to war for a political stunt is pretty disgusting
The only reason she went was because the US military deemed it safe to do so. No one wants a war right now.
> I wonder what she was really trying to accomplish.
Why not listen to her words?
"We must stand by Taiwan, which is an island of resilience. Taiwan is a leader in governance … . At the same time, Beijing is squeezing Taiwan economically, pressuring global corporations to cut ties with the island, intimidating countries that cooperate with Taiwan, and clamping down on tourism from the [mainland]. In the face of the Chinese Communist Party’s … accelerating aggression, our congressional delegation’s visit should be seen as an unequivocal statement that America stands with Taiwan, our democratic partner, as it defends itself and its freedom."
>The only reason she went was because the US military deemed it safe to do so.
The same military that said Afghanistan wouldn't fall until months after we left? The same DoD that convinced us WMDs existed in Iraq? How many times will we buy into this garbage?
"Our commitment to democracy is tested in China. That nation now has a sliver, a fragment of liberty. Yet, China's people will eventually want their liberty pure and whole. China has discovered that economic freedom leads to national wealth. China's leaders will also discover that freedom is indivisible -- that social and religious freedom is also essential to national greatness and national dignity. Eventually, men and women who are allowed to control their own wealth will insist on controlling their own lives and their own country."
W. Bush said similar things when trying to manufacture content for invading Iraq. You know how that worked out. Don't buy what they're selling like I did 20 years ago. Warmongers need to go. A draft to fight China will destroy an entire generation. She has no business saber rattling like that.
If making a label that complies with Chinese customs is really such a matter of protecting Taiwan, then you should ask these Taiwanese manufacturers to not export their products to China in the first place. Given that they are exporting to China, Apple is correct that they need to comply with China's rules, no matter how arbitrary.
IMO, more people need to learn about marginal thinking. This is the only way we can operate in a complicated, interconnected world, and China is much better at this. When Nike and H&M voiced concerns about Xinjiang, the CPC organized consumer boycotts of these companies. Meanwhile, they happily allowed factories to continue to sell their goods to sell to Nike and H&M. China itself recognizes that it only makes sense to virtue signal when it is economical to do so.
It never was, that's why they want chip companies to build factories in the US as a backup. Until May 2022 the official state department website specifically said that the US does not support independence. Even now it still says that it's official stance is a one china policy(although China does not believe that that is indeed the official stance, hence the tensions).
But at the end of the day anyone that can read a map can see what the reality here looks like. There is that which we would like to be true, and that which is reality and unfortunately the reality looks a bit more grim.
Ukraine is a Sovereign Country, recognised by UN, Taiwan is not and technically it's still China.
In the case of Apple though, they should have put "made in China" on their iPhones, because that's where they were made (even in the case that the two Chinas situation is recognized by International institutions)
edit: apparently stating the obvious deserves downvotes here, I still don't know if it's Russians offended by the sovereignty of Ukraine or someone from Vatican State, one among the few to recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country.
Sovereignty is something you observe, not something you declare. A regime that is successfully able to maintain control of its territory and prevent its territory from being controlled by anyone else, for a n indefinite period of time, is by definition sovereign. That is what sovereignty is.
Taiwan's regime has been able to control its territory for decades. PRC can claim that they wish Taiwan was not sovereign, and this is very true, but until they successfully invade and take it over, Taiwan is still sovereign.
There is nothing "by definition" when talking about the legality of sovereignty of countries.
Is Palestine a sovereign State, if "it is by definition"?
> Sovereignty is something you observe, not something you declare
You are confusing sovereignty (or trying to confuse the readers on purpose) with being a recognized sovereign country, which is a legal construct, we have developed International legal frameworks for that, we enforce them, using the force if necessary, or I could declare the land where my house is built upon "a sovereign country".
I clearly can't, can I?
If China attacks Taiwan, technically it's not really an invasion.
It makes a big difference.
> Taiwan's regime has been able to control its territory for decades
So has done Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
edit: technically the Taiwanese one is not a regime, it's an elected government.
> Just a little English vocabulary lesson!
maybe you should focus more on "text comprehension" than on the vocabulary.
> There is nothing "by definition" when talking about the legality of sovereignty of countries.
No, neither I nor the parent were talking about "legality" just sovereignty. This "legal" sovereignty is a concept you and you alone have introduced to the discussion, and frankly I think it's a pretty useless and nonsense concept in practical terms. (There is no world government, after all, and laws are different in every country, so legality at an international level is a kind of meaningless philosophical question in the absence of someone able and willing to enforce it)
> No, neither I nor the parent were talking about "legality" just sovereignty
moving the goalpost much?
I specifically talked about "sovereign countries recognized by the UN"
So yeah, I introduced it, because it's the only thing that matters.
Nobody cares about sovereignty outside of legal borders and international recognition.
Are Catalans sovereign in Catalonia?
Nobody cares unless they can get international recognition.
Are Lombard sovereign in Lombardy?
Who cares?
Nobody, unless they can obtain the recognition of the UN.
I'm sovereign in my bedroom, too bad nobody cares.
Anyway you wrote "Taiwan is a sovereign country by definition", no, it's not.
It's a disputed territory, the matter is very complex, there are strong opposing interests of various natures conflicting over it, for a part of the World there are humanitarian reasons to support their claims, but technically it's still part of China (PRC), the one the international authorities recognize.
Why is there the US army to defend them against a Chinese take over, if there is no way to enforce anything internationally?
Also, go and read about the 2021 referendums
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) on the island of Taiwan has been criticized for selling the interests of the people of Taiwan out in exchange for US support of its secessionist political pursuit
[...]
Taiwan residents have expressed great concern over the import of pork containing ractopamine, an additive banned by many countries, as this issue impacts the health interests of every Taiwan resident, Zhu said.
Thousands of people flooded Taipei's streets in late November for a protest march, with much of the anger focused on the DDP authorities' decision to ease restrictions on imports of US pork.
The DPP authority has allowed the import of thousands of tons of ractopamine-contaminated US port since January 1, according to media reports.
This is enough to expose the fact that the DPP has ignored the interests of the people on the island, and is aimed at currying favor with certain political and economic forces in the US
What do you think would happen if at the next elections a President pro reunification with mainland prevails?
So their sovereignty is still not "by definition" in any sense.
No matter what side you are on.
> There is no world government, after all
There is, however.
The fact that you don't recognize it, it's irrelevant.
If tomorrow New Yorkers declare themselves sovereign over the NY territory, do you think the US government will let them print money and elect a president?
Enlighten me on why not, please.
> No, neither I nor the parent
the parent wrote
"Imagine if Apple told Ukraine employees to label Russia on their badges"
and I explained why it would be different.
Made in Ukraine it's a thing, because Ukraine is recognized as sovereign Nation, while Russia is another country, currently trying to occupy Ukraine by force.
Made in Taiwan no, not legally, it's like made in Palestine, made in Catalonia, made in Sicily or made in Calgary.
If it's made in Taiwan, it's made in China, if it's made in Ukraine it's not Russian (at least for now)
Foxconn is a Taiwanese company, operating in China. The Taiwanese businesses knew they were shooting themselves in the foot but opened up factories in China anyways.
The comparison the Ukraine is getting old, mainly because I think a lot of history has been forgotten. Taiwan's formal name is the Republic of China, a government that was in control of Beijing in WWII, and allies with the US. During the Civil War, there was a truce been the CCP and the Kuomingtang (the ruling party of ROC back then) to fight against the Japanese. After WWII, there was a civil war between the CCP and the Kuomingtang. The Kuomingtang lost military engagements and retreated to the island of Taiwan. What makes the issue of Taiwanese and Chinese soveriengty complicated is that the Kuomingtang had asserted territorial rights over mainland China, but the military reality weakens those claims year after year. By the time of the late 80s, that position over reclaiming China had become the equivalent of the right-wing politics in Taiwan.
Culturally, the Taiwanese and Chinese inherit from the same, ancient Chinese civilization, with the Taiwanese having preserved much of the Chinese history, and the PROC did not (Cultural Revolution).
Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan (ROC) is not a buffer state between two major political powers. They were a veto power in the UN before CCP-controlled China, backed by the Soviets, forced their way into the UN Security Council. It is less about Taiwan being protected by US and more about the US honoring old alliances.
It's from that lens that Apple's response is interesting.
> is not a buffer state between two major political powers
Ukraine is not a buffer state between two powers though.
Only Americans see it like that, after they regained independence from USSR.
Ukrainians are an east Slavic ethnic group native of Ukraine, separated from Russians, who descend from Finno-Ugric tribes.
Unlike 97% of Taiwanese people, who are Han Chinese like in mainland China.
Taiwan is more like Catalonia, where Catalans insist that they are different from Spaniards, but the conclusion is that Catalans including other Spaniards and even Portuguese are the same ethnic people
EDIT: immediate downvotes are probably from Russian zealots pretending that the World is indeed 100% Russian and should stay like that.
A buffer state can still have sovereignty. For example, North Korea is a buffer state between Chinese/Russia and South Korea / Japan, America. This is more about geopolitical realities than territory and culture claimed by ethnic groups.
If you are thinking of _vassal_ states, historically, Imperial China had some. A more complicated example, Qing-dynasty, Manchurian-controlled China tried to treat the kingdom of Korea as one.
As far as I know, neither Ukraine or Taiwan were or are vassal states.
It is not about nationality, or ethnicity, or anything else about people living there, except international recognition of the territory and the amount of sovereignty it has.
It is about geopolitical situation, where states A and C happen to have state B between them. When relations between A and C go real sour, then B becomes a buffer state between them (unless B is powerful enough to kick asses of both A and C, should anything escalate). The buffer state’s role in geopolitics is to get invaded first on the way, cause an international outrage, and hopefully defuse the tensions before A gets to “C proper” territory, or at least stall the invasion.
> except international recognition of the territory and the amount of sovereignty it has
You can be 100% sovereign and be a buffer state and 0% sovereign and not be one (see French Polynesia)
> It is about geopolitical situation, where states A and C happen to have state B between them
then Germany is a buffer state, Poland is a buffer state, Israel is a buffer state, Afghanistan is a buffer state. Sweden is a buffer state, Finland is a buffer state, Bulgaria is a buffer state, Switzerland is a buffer state, Mongolia is a buffer state, Canada is a buffer state etc.
except that
Ukraine has been described as a buffer state between Russia and the NATO bloc, at least up to the ousting of former President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014
We let them be an independent Nation when they agreed to become a kinda democratic country.
Donbass is the buffer state there, between Ukraine and Russia.
As far as we are concerned, Russia is not at war with Europe or NATO, but with Ukraine, for reasons belonging entirely to a Russian-Ukraine conflict.
A buffer state is a "neutral area" that two powers agree on, Russia never really agreed on Ukraine independence and tried to make it a buffer between them and NATO. If Russia wins the war against Ukraine, then Ukraine will become a buffer state.
If Ukraine was really a buffer state, we would be at war with Russia now, we surely would be if Russia attacked Finland or Sweden or Bulgaria or Romania or Poland, because it's Europe, or if USSR entered west Germany or when Iraq invaded Kuwait etc. etc.
What happened when Yugoslavia (a buffer state) dissolved?
Do you really believe USA would have missed a chance to go to war, given the motivation?
Speaking of shaming Apple for their dealings in China, does anyone remember the time Ricky Gervais ripped Apple (and Hollywood by association) over their sweatshops at the 2020 Golden Globes?
It's selective wokeness by employees of Apple. Or an American-centric attitude with no interest in universal principles of self-determination by all peoples.
Well, one difference is the US is a lot more beholden to China (PRC) than to Russia. The loss of Russian energy supplies would be far less damaging to the US economy than the loss of Chinese manufacturing, for which there really is not substitute right now. China has more leverage vis a vis the US and the west than Russia does, in other words.
And we all know which 2 political groups oversaw the export of labour to foreign lands... Maybe if the population was interested in actual change it would stop with three political theatre and vote for the things which impact them most...
> Imagine if Apple told Ukraine employees to label Russia on their badges.
Absolutely, this is crazy bullshit. Let's share it everywhere, 'cause without mass highlight situation isn't going to change: Apple just picking up the side with bigger money.
The Information is one of the most reputable sources of information (no pun) from silicon valley and it was largely ignored.
I would like a massive investigative journalism project, perhaps from WSJ with the same rigor has their Theranos investigation by John Carreyrou.
American journalism has talked about Uigher/labor issues in China, but never in the light of "Hey, look, this is the elephant in the room when it comes to China and no one cares. That's the amount of shit America consumes and depends on China".
Taiwan follows the "One China" policy. They view themselves as Chinese even more so than the PRC, not part of some sort of separate, "independent" culture/nation. So the "China" badge is quite justified on its own terms.
You should educate yourself about the fact that PRC Taiwan and USA all legally recognize one China policy. China is not PRC, PRC is at best the only internationally recognized government of China. Even so there is still only one China.
Of cuz, because of US are exceptional, US does not abide by the international law, so Pelosi visited Taiwan as a high level official from US.
Apple need to operate in the boundary of law. That's it.
As for whether or not PRC money is immoral. For a company founded in a nation practiced slavery in modern history, performed genocide on American Indian, launched Vietnam war, and brutally supported and helped the other fellow morally coruppted war crimals to oppress Palestinian Yemen, Cuba etc.
They are part of the problem from the very beginning. They are the original sin that drives all sorts of evil.
The USA has imperfect history for sure. But that doesn't change the fact that currently, none of those things you mention are actively happening.. whereas the critiques of the PRC are based on current events like the Uyghur genocide and removal of freedoms in Hong Kong. A nation is molded by it's history not identified by it. Nobody fears the Nazis when visiting Berlin today.
> the fact that PRC Taiwan and USA all legally recognize one China policy
Notice how you use the term "legally." You know that in fact, most nations around the world treat Taiwan as a de-facto independent nation. The USA's formal word on this is as follows: "acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China"
Notice how it does _not_ claim that the _USA_ thinks there is only one China. Only that it recognizes PRC and Taiwan do.
> Apple need to operate in the boundary of law
Apple need operate in the boundary of PRC law if they want to keep their Chinese factories, workers and profits, and that's what this critique is all about. Nobody else cares if they have "made in Taiwan" on their parts or products. In fact, I'd prefer if they did as it's more transparent!
"Apple need to operate in the boundary of law. That's it."
Whose law? Whose norms? Apple may be a global company but it uses American sovereignty, intellectual property law, and influence on other sovereign nations with respect to protecting its wealth, even if a good chunk of it is generated overseas.
The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) is an act of Congress that requires America to make weapons available to Taiwan so they have the means of defending themselves. What that means precisely is decided by the President and Congress.
Unfortunately, that's the best I could give to you. Not really intentionally trying to dodge the question. My comments are based on number casual exposure from my personally reputable sources which I don't have time and energy to sort out, as I am not a full time intentional law practitioner.
The best my comments can give is for someone who is genuinely interested in learning history to spend time to look for reputable sources.
HN for things outside of tech industry generally offers sharply lower quality. So you generally should not treat anyone here including myself too seriously.
So then the answer is no, those weapons companies are not breaking the law. They have been selling weapons to taiwan for decades, and they do not have to worry about international law.
> You should educate yourself about the fact that PRC Taiwan and USA all legally recognize one China policy. China is not PRC, PRC is at best the only internationally recognized government of China. Even so there is still only one China.
> Of cuz, because of US are exceptional, US does not abide by the international law, so Pelosi visited Taiwan as a high level official from US.
One China Policy isn't a law, at least not outside the PRC; it's a gentlemen's agreement between the U.S., China (PRC), and Taiwan (ROC) which permits everybody to save face without having to go to war. It's not written down anywhere, except perhaps on a hurried memorandum.
Furthermore, the only reason the PRC represents China in the United Nations is because of another gentlemen's agreement between the PRC and the U.S. (Nixon, Kissinger) that the PRC would abstain from forcefully invading Taiwan. Up until then the ROC had the seat and would have continued to do so. (Note that this is distinct from the One China Policy, which is a face-saving public gloss on the commitments to abstain from using military force over Taiwan.)
But-for the strategic ambiguity wrt Taiwan, the U.S. is very careful not to violate Chinese territorial sovereignty. I'm not aware of any principal of international law that is per se violated by Pelosi visiting Taiwan. Perhaps the PRC has a law on the books that says otherwise, but the PRC doesn't administer Taiwan. This state affairs exists beyond written and normative international law; it just is what it is.
Now if the U.S. were to have a military presence on Taiwan, especially a permanent presence, then that would be another story. International law wouldn't figure into it either, but it would be a much clearer violation of the U.S.-PRC agreement regarding the PRC's ascension to the U.N. and the subsequent One China Policy memorandum. AFAIK, the U.S. doesn't permit military officers to enter Taiwan, at least not in their official capacity. Unlike the President, the Speaker of the House holds no military office. From the U.S. perspective, this is the no-go line.
If you want to talk about violating clearly written international agreements, let's talk Hong Kong. But that wouldn't be very productive, either, because despite the formalities the Hong Kong situation also pushes beyond the envelop of what normative international law can speak to.
Looks great, a well rounded analysis of the situation.
But, it misses the critical historical heritage for the event and the actual international laws at the time of the end of WWII.
The situation is more like the China domestic war was not ending, and US intervened China's unification out of the strategic goal of contain communism. PRC of cuz had been the Vanguard of political insurgency across the east Asia.
One China policy is recognized by international law not because of US, one China policy is derived from a series of international treaties after ww2. Those are the laws actually has the most legitimacy.
And the other so called general men's agreement of PRC's representation of this one China. That's just an automatic derivation from that fact that PRC inherits the ROC seat in UN. You are reversing the cause and effect. But this is quite common for people living in US, as they tend to view everything as if they were always under US leadership, and claimed that a lot things that actually sanctioned under check and balance of geopolitical struggles into some kind of US concession out of necessary strategic goal that eventually US are going to revert.
Precisely that's one wrong lesson of geopolitical struggling. You can always claims a moral superiority and legal high ground from ones own perspective. That's the case for US, Taiwan, PRC, and even for Japan's refusal to admit it war crimes. But the underlying facts of power and strength, which has always been the driven force of geopolitical struggles, is always the foundation.
Oh, are you aware of how "Wu Mao" or "US dollars" parties work? Teach me, so that I could start earning some "immoral" income. Or we might actually can work together on this.
Jokes aside, I got my impression on general history and personally deemed reputable sources. Nothing from what I said would have comprehensive references, because I am not a full-time political practitioner.
Feel free to draw your conclusion, but opaque derogatory comments help no one.
US isn't even serious about protecting themselves.
"Given the aggression we are seeing...and the FBI director...saying that China...is the #1 threat to the U.S. in the next 10 yrs, would [Biden]...caution companies from expanding...in China?"
"private companies...make their own decisions" - John Kirby, National Security Council coordinator for strategic communications
A lot of people here making comments without knowing anything about the 70 year-old issue of the definition of "China", as well as the "one country" philosophy that both Taiwan and Mainland China adhere to officially.[1][2][3]
I'm not Chinese but I did lived in Taiwan for 6 years and was married to a Chinese woman who's father escaped to Taiwan from China after the Nationalists lost the civil war and fled to Taiwan.
Apple's policy is exactly in line with Taiwan's own official policy.
To be sure, there is official policy and there is actual sentiment on the ground. "Made in Taiwan" reflects the Taiwan populace's growing desire to distinguish itself from China, as well as reflect the de facto reality.[4][5]
But if Taiwan itself as a country is unwilling to change their official policy, be it because they still cling to the "One China" notion, or because they are afraid of pissing off China, why is everyone here demanding that Apple do something that Taiwan is itself unwilling to do? Why should they, as an American company, push any particular angle, especially when there is position they can take that is compatible with the policies of both Taiwan and China?
If you are arguing for a world that pushes values over profit and other self-serving things, I'd give you a hug and then tell you there are far more important stands to take, including a serious and honest analysis of capitalism. Are all the people dissing Apple on this issue also willing to diss Apple for the exploitation of cheap labor in Asia all while growing to have the greatest market cap in the whole world? If you are not then I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on.
---
[1] Note the words at the top of the government's home page: "Government Portal of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" www.taiwan.gov.tw
They now use the phrase "free area of the Republic of China" and specifically say, "Rights and obligations between the people of the Chinese mainland area and those of the free area, and the disposition of other related affairs may be specified by law."
This company pretends it has the moral high ground, but like most of corporate America, they always have an eye on Chinese profits. America's future is at stake and we won't wake up until it's too late.
It reads to me like Apple is warning suppliers that it's parts may not get to factories in China if it does not comply with Chinese law.
You would like Apple to... stop importing parts from Taiwan to China? That doesn't seem right, it would hurt Taiwan. Stop manufacturing in China? That's... ambitious. Ignore the situation and just accept assembly lines being halted because of lack of parts stopped at border? Other?
I don't totally see how America's future is at stake requiring current escalations to challenges to China's long-standing statement that Taiwan is part of china. You think America may cease to exist unless the government chooses right now to change their policy and refuse to let China maintain this fiction? And that private corporations start challenging it too even before the government does? Or else America may cease to exist?
Just curious, I would like to learn more about what you're looking for here. I'm curious if you are hoping for a shooting war between the US and China, if you think that would be good for "America's future"?
> Stop manufacturing in China? That's... ambitious.
Apple's profit margins are so high that they'd probably still be positive even if they did this without raising prices at all. (Remember nobody's saying they should have to move manufacturing to the US. There are plenty of countries with low labor costs that are less evil than China.)
Apple has repeatedly said that it’s not China’s cheaper labor. They don’t have as cheap labor anymore, especially compared to India, Vietnam, Philippines, etc. they say it’s because of the complex specialized knowledge of suppliers around Shenzhen and I’m inclined to believe them. You can choose to not trust them.
> This company pretends it has the moral high ground, but like most of corporate America, they always have an eye on Chinese profits.
To be fair, it's not fair to use this as an occasion for Apple bashing or America bashing.
The whole Taiwan thing goes much deeper. For example, if you look at ISO3166, the country code standard.
If you look up Taiwan in ISO3166[1], you will see it listed as "Taiwan (Province of China)".
So, if a supposedly neutral international body sees it fit to maintain the link, then what hope have you got for individual countries or their companies ?
Apparently it's Kissinger's fault (with the secret treaty with China). From then on UN stopped recognizing Taiwan and gave the seat to China. See this video at 16min mark [1]
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5POKVD8XMg).
Just a note, the ISO standard and the United Nations are intrinsically linked. A country can only enter ISO 3166-1 if it appears in the United Nations Terminology Bulletin 'Country Names'. And I suppose one could argue the UN is not neutral.
Apparently, People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) are in agreement that there's only one China. They differ on which government is legitimate.
It's worth noting that in the ROC (Taiwan) that position is losing popularity, and since about 2007 they seem to be moving towards becoming an independent nation that claims only the island of Taiwan. It's a politically difficult topic however, which is why no name change happened so far.
> So, if a supposedly neutral international body sees it fit to maintain the link, then what hope have you got for individual countries or their companies ?
Neutrality in politics doesn't refer to a Platonic ideal where the existence of a conflict doesn't affect you in any way. Neutrality is a pragmatic message: "I understand you two have a conflict, I'm not going to take it upon myself to solve it, but I'd like to operate here regardless".
One option is of course to say that nobody should be neutral in the conflict between China and Taiwan, but the obvious objection is that Taiwan does not want this. Taiwan's economic links with the mainland are enormous and it's absolutely routine for Taiwanese businesses to export to China or do business in China under Chinese regulations. (For example, you may be familiar with Foxconn, a Taiwanese company with over a million Chinese employees.)
I don't know why you're over-complicating this. The body that decided on that terminology didn't even invite Taiwan to participate. The terminology was chosen at the behest of China. That body was obviously not neutral.
Once again you're over-complicated this. The organization could have invited Taiwan to participate and asked them what they'd like to be called. That would certainly satisfy those questioning the organization's neutrality.
Allowing the PRC to decide what the lands they govern are called and allowing the ROC to decide that the lands they govern are called is _obviously_ more neutral than allowing either the PRC or the ROC to make the decision for both sides. Taking the PRC’s side (as that committee did) or the ROC’s side is basically the definition of “not neutral”.
China does need to be “satisfied” for it to be neutral.
> gave us they cheaper products we so desired by offshoring
This is kind of silly to blame average people on the street for buying something cheaper that shows up in their local stores. This is all on the government (both parties), and large corporations for pushing this. People didn't "want" NAFTA, slave labor, etc.
I think it's only reasonable to place blame on the population if you figure elected officials are representative of their constituents, and that the population has a responsibility to make sure it stays that way.
Simultaneously you could make a pretty good case going the other way, or that we're well past that point.
I mean what are they supposed to do? Choose your battles. If your home country says Taiwan is part of China the easiest path with the least resistance is to label stuff from Taiwan as “made in china”.
Of all the fights Apple can choose to pick, it seems like this one just isn’t worth it. Much better they pick fights about police having the ability to unlock phones or something.
Choose your battles. Let some shoe company pick that battle or something…
I disagree, Apple is acting exactly as it claims are its ethics, here. The part that needs discussion is how it prioritizes adhering to laws versus less specifically defined ethical values.
In my view, China acts abusively in many ways. And the country is currently important to modern global manufacturing.
In my understanding changing where a physical product company manufactures everything is horrifically difficult.
Apple very discretely talks about the ethical standards that it adheres to:
>Change is typically hard, in my understanding of life, and changing where a physical product company manufactures everything is horrifically difficult.
Yes, but if any company has the money and the power to make those changes happen, it's Apple.
I don't think Apple is overtly advertising any morality in it's policies.
I think that's something that we have to do as shareholders of Apple. Shareholders and customers. We have to say, "Hey we don't like how your company is from our moral perspective. Please change your policies so that they conform to our morality."
Not really. Pretty much every iPhone sold everywhere is manufactured in China, and they all use chips from Taiwan.
There is no Apple without China. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese nationals, working in Chinese-jurisdiction factories, produce Apple's products. Without the full consent and cooperation of the Chinese government, there are no Apple products. Full stop.
The United States government has always had a One-China policy, regardless of which party is in power. Why is this on Apple? Be mad at your elected leaders if you don't like it.
100% of Apple's important chips depend on Taiwan continuing to be Taiwan (and TSMC continuing to be TSMC).
~100% of Apple's manufacturing depends on China continuing to permit hundreds of thousands of Chinese nationals in Chinese factories (Foxconn's plants in Zhengzhou and elsewhere) building Apple products.
I'm not sure what you mean by "knuckle under" in this context, but Apple is, today, wholly dependent upon Taiwanese and Chinese manufacturing (for chips, and assembly, respectively).
If there is a war between China and Taiwan, or China and the US, Apple stands to lose the most of any single organization, I think.
Damn. “Any single organization” is a hell of a qualifier. I mean if there was some war every company that builds physical shit would get fucked. But I’m hard pressed to think of any other single org that would be more fucked.
Would that be true based on market cap? Cause I’m sure countless auto manufacturers, airplane manufacturers, elevator manufacturers, consumer goods manufacturers, and god knows what else would be equally fucked. But by market cap none of them would be as fucked as Apple.
Yes, they are dependent on China and Taiwan, but they will knuckle under to the point to which the company is seriously disrupted if not destroyed once the war starts. I think it behooves everyone at Apple to prepare for the war and to figure out likely alternatives, and to also assume that the usual grey market way of getting around it will be anticipated by the federal government, and under war conditions the federal government may have a harsher point of view on it than they usually would with country of origin manipulation.
Even if the US wins a war over Taiwan, it'd probably take a long time to resolve, and trade would be disrupted for long enough that nothing is getting off the island until peace is re-established. Right now, if nothing changes with the US-China trajectory, war is coming. If the trajectory changes, that might change.
To me the only left long term solution is to move as much technology and specialized workforce out of China to rebuild chip farms in different countries. I understand it's a very long and costly process, but also the mere starting it could work as a leverage.
This all is highlighting the dangers to public companies about political positions potentially destabilizing the business. Part of the responsibility of C level execs is to shield the shareholders from such uncertainty. AAPL should not be dependent on any single region for product and the political climate & COVID restrictions are prime examples why businesses now need to dramatically shift their supply chain dependencies to dilute the risk.
You cannot offend China if your company is a China-based manufacturing company. Tim Cook didn't make sure Apple was am America-base manufacturing company and spent a lot of Apple's money on China. Thinking that Tim Cook will not march to Xi Jinping's drum is absurd. His criticisms of American manufacturing can all be solved by Apple investing the same money.
This should be a bigger story. He should be seen as someone who spent American money to build China's supply chain.
However, the Emirates cannot trade with Israel, and refuse to pay for any equipment labelled as coming from this country. Calling one of the officials, they asked for a solution. They told them to ship everything first to the UK. There, they should unpack every single object, and package them again with different country labels. Once the box has passed custom, nobody will raise the topic about the equipment origin.
And so this is what they do.