[ilamont]

I have one Chinese friend who employs a double entendre, calling him "Xitler"

In all seriousness, this is a black period for Chinese people and China's neighbors. The fledgling democracy in Hong Kong, and democratic nations around China's periphery including Taiwan, Japan, Nepal, and India should be very wary dealing with a strongman who will stop at nothing to further his power and nationalism-focused legacy.

[ender89]

Japan has nothing to worry about. The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security Between the United States and Japan, signed after WWII, basically means that Japan AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are responsible to ensure the national security of Japan (It's actually mutual with the understanding that the Japanese constitution forbids deploying armed forces abroad). In other words, if china is actually aggressive towards Japan in any way, the full force of the United States armed forces will stand with them. As one of China's main trading partners, China doesn't want to pick a fight with the united states any more than we want to pick a fight with China. Similarly, South Korea has little to fear from China (even if they're propping up North Korea to do it), since the US has a similar relationship there. Nepal and Taiwan are screwed. India... its hard to imagine things going worse for India to be honest. Lets focus on getting most of their people clean, proper toilets before we start worrying about the influence of communist dictatorships, eh?

[ilamont]

Mutual defense treaties have a poor track record in the face of heavily armed, aggressive regimes playing up real or imagined injustices while undermining political and military obstacles. If the alliance is weak, disaster can result.

Examples abound - Poland and France both had mutual defense treaties with various allies that failed when Germany invaded. In Japan's backyard, the Philippines lost territory in the South China Sea to China after it decided to cut ties with the U.S. military. As soon as the U.S. pulled away, the Chinese PLA moved right in. An international tribunal in The Hague ruled China's actions were completely illegal, but China has since strengthened its hold by building landing strips and military fortifications on the reefs and small islets.

The Japan/U.S. alliance is strong, but relationships and power profiles can change. Xi's not going anywhere, and he can play the long game when it comes to the Diaoyutai and other territorial claims.

[rbp]

Minor quibble - UK entered WW2 because of their mutual defense treaty with Poland

[merpnderp]

And Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons with the understanding the US would ensure Russia never invaded. How did that work out for them?

[liberte82]

Obama gave them a good warning about that red line.

[nickvanhoog]

"As one of China's main trading partners, China doesn't want to pick a fight with the united states any more than we want to pick a fight with China."

Such thinking was very common going into World War I. The mutual economic interests of all of the nations involved led many people to believe it would be over in a few months.

[JumpCrisscross]

> The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security Between the United States and Japan, signed after WWII, basically means that Japan AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are responsible to ensure the national security of Japan

China has long-range nukes. Behind every treat is political resolve. Would America risk lighting its cities on fire to defend a country across the ocean? (I hope so. But I'm not sure.)

[Slansitartop]

> China has long-range nukes. Behind every [th]reat is political resolve. Would America risk lighting its cities on fire to defend a country across the ocean? (I hope so. But I'm not sure.)

The same could be said of China. Would it risk MAD by invading Japan? The US could be spurred to act due to the threat of eventual isolation and defeat after its allies are picked off. That fear is what fueled the regional wars like Vietnam fought during the Cold War.

In any case, it's estimated that Japan could develop its own indigenous nuclear capability very quickly if the need arose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_progra...

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/06/24/national/politi...

[liberte82]

If there's one thing we should have already learned from Trump, it's that treaties mean absolutely nothing if they don't meet US interests in realpolitik. All Trump has to do is start complaining about Japan "taking advantage of us" and before you know it, they'll be public enemy number one in his supporters' eyes.

[Rapzid]

Congress has the power to declare war.

[narrator]

Even if someone is a lover of the communist party, isn't it somewhat of a bad idea to have a cult of personality style leader? Wasn't that what the party wanted to put an end to after Mao?

[ilamont]

They may have said it, but the CCP nevertheless used propaganda, Han-centric nationalism, and control of the news media to elevate certain leaders into cult status. Xi and Deng are obvious examples, but I also recall the Jiang apparatus trying to play that card as well.

[antichronology]

I wonder if it will have some sort of long term impact on the economy. Is there a way of measuring relative government authoritarianism on economic development of a nation?

[JumpCrisscross]

Political stability encourages growth [1]. The form of government seems largely irrelevant [2]. China is moving from a stable if novel mode (small-group democratic dictatorship) to an unstable mode (single-leader dictatorship).

[1] https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4553024/alesina_...

[2] https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.7.3.51

[woodandsteel]

>Political stability encourages growth

Absolutely. That is why the US, thanks to having a multi-party democracy, never got anywhere with the industrial revolution. And that is why Putin's Russia is leading the world in technological innovation and economic growth.

Of course, if when you say "political stability" you mean the absence of things like civil wars and coups, well yes, that really helps economic growth. But I don't think Xi is making himself dictator-for-life because China is on the verge of that sort of instability.

[woolvalley]

China was already an authoritarian nation, how much of an effective difference would this make?

[ilamont]

When strongman-based cults of personality (real or wannabe) appoint themselves ruler for life, policy can go off the rails. Wars, purges, persecution of minority groups, and civil unrest are more likely. Corrupt systems of checks and balances, which may have already been weak, slide ever further.

Mao, Stalin, Chavez, Castro, Hitler, Mussolini, Chiang Kai-Shek ... a few of these strongmen presided over brief periods of spectacular economic growth, but always under unsustainable conditions. Many citizens (and the citizens of neighboring countries) paid a terrible price.

[kevin_thibedeau]

And then there's Singapore. Ruled by an authoritarian, gum hating despot who provides nice civic infrastructure for the populace.

[ericd]

When you have a great king, it's among the best forms of government. The problem is that that great king's successor is probably not also great, and under a bad ruler, it's among the worst forms of government, and that bad king can last for your entire lifetime.

It's never spectacularly efficient, but the US' form of democracy is meant to be much lower variance. I think it's a good tradeoff.

[liberte82]

> When you have a great king, it's among the best forms of government.

citation needed

[narrator]

With a dictatorship it really depends on the competence of the leadership. This is not a robust strategy for organizing human civilizations.

[jack9]

Really? Because stable singular hierarchies is exactly how we evolved to have civilization.

[balthasar]

Typo there with Chavez? Democratically elected and rose the quality of life of Venezuela.

[zentiggr]

Typo there with _rose_ quality of life in Venezuela?

Pretty sure we've watched that 'democratic' experiment fail spectacularly, at least what news I know of the economy and living conditions in general seem very poor at best. Failed state comes to mind.

[balthasar]

What is the link between Chavez's policies and Venezuela's current economic condition?

[phyller]

He might have raised the quality of life temporarily (I'm not sure even about that), but what is happening now in Venezuela was practically inevitable. You might be warmer for a little while as you take apart your house and burn it piece by piece, but in the end you will more assuredly freeze. In my opinion, it was a great tragedy that Chavez is not still alive today. Now people can say ridiculous things like this. If he was alive today, Venezuela would still be collapsing and it would be clear whose fault it was.

[balthasar]

Yes. Perhaps it was inevitable. For what reasons though?

[ilamont]

Hitler came to power on top of a democratic system, too (IIRC, by leveraging political alliances and grassroots violence in the pre-1933 parliamentary system). He surely improved the quality of life for the Nazi base in the mid-30s after he took power.

Didn't stop him from dismantling democratic institutions, eliminating all political rivals, invading his neighbors, and murdering millions of people.

[balthasar]

Chavez did none of these things. Is your knowledge of history so shallow that you must bring up Hitler appro to nothing every chance that you get?

[leggomylibro]

What happened when Mao unilaterally declared that ploughshares should be melted down for the good of the economy?

I'm not a huge fan of authoritarian systems, but individual people are even more fallible. Laying decision-making power on one individual is a recipe for failure; they're going to be wrong eventually, and chances are people will be reluctant to speak out against their god-emperor when that happens in a system where power is so ridiculously centralized.

[antichronology]

provide an economic argument for not implementing additional authoritarian policies. Seems that these decisions are incredibly hard to measure. For example how much did Turkey's economy suffer from the previous failed coup?

[martimarkov]

That for me personally only strengthens my belief that it was orchestrated.