[pphysch]

> Lots of companies are cutting ties with China

Do you have anything to back this up, preferably not cherry-picking pandemic data?

Last I checked Apple had 90% of their manufacturing done in China and lost an Indian supplier this week.

Bing apparently just became the #1 search engine in China among desktop users (whatever that means).

China just came out of nowhere as the #1 car exporter.

The idea that the world will isolate China on behalf of Washington is a unipolar pipe dream.

[threeseed]

> The idea that the world will isolate China on behalf of Washington

Countries are doing it because of economic coercion.

China has banned Australian products from import (in violation of WTO rules) because of its position on Taiwan, Quad, Chinese foreign investment etc. Similarly for Sweden.

Which is one reason why EU has not been keen on a comprehensive FTA with China.

[pphysch]

It's a stretch to call it "coercion" when it is directly in response to offenses committed against China [1] and primarily driven by Washington. Framing every negative action as coercion, regardless of causality, drains that word of meaning.

The bottom line is China wants to do business, but Washington wants China to be contained.

[1] - https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/12/1/australia-china-...

[JumpCrisscross]

> China wants to do business, but Washington wants China to be contained

China expelling diplomats and cutting economic ties because an Australian college student said something mean or Baltic nation didn't agree with the party line on Taiwan is not wanting to do business.

[pphysch]

In virtually every case these are explicit tit-for-tat actions.

[JumpCrisscross]

> virtually every case these are explicit tit-for-tat actions

Zig versus zag. The point is economic repercussions for diplomatic faux pas means you aren’t just looking to do business, you’re leveraging business as a political tool. That’s a novel risk environment compared to before Xi.

[threeseed]

You weren't clear what offences Australia has committed to China or why you are making this about US.

Banning Huawei over national security concerns or asking for an independent inquiry into the source of COVID is hardly offensive. And they are not excuses for refusing to abide by WTO rules and inventing reasons to prevent free and fair trade.

What is offensive is China providing a list of 14 grievances that Australia must address (e.g. supporting China's take over of Taiwan) in order to maintain a normal economic relationship.

[pphysch]

> You weren't clear what offences Australia has committed to China or why you are making this about US.

I cited it, you just didn't bother to read it.

[tatrajim]

In East Asia, China-South Korea relations have turned rocky over the past ten years, due to frustration on the part of China over South Korea's continued military alliance with the U.S. (e.g. the THAAD radar issue in 2017 that ended by ruining the burgeoning Korean Lotte network of shopping centers across China). Samsung used to be huge in China, but now it's largely domestic brands Huawei, Xiaomi, Oppo et al. Samsung had a massive phone assembly plant in Tianjin, but moved to northern Vietnam.

From a Korea perspective, the proprietorial attitude of many Chinese ("Korea used be part of China" Xi Jinping told Donald Trump), and the penumbra of nationalism in the PRC have resulted in a major shift in public opinion from 2000. Now some 80% of South Korean youth view China unfavorably, and that seems unlikely to improve in the near future.