[somenameforme]

That's a... unique take. You might want to check out the Century of Humiliation. [1] The one thing you do have right is that "good relations" in contemporary times seem to translate into "completely subservient, even to point of a willingness to engaging in self detrimental behavior if demanded." What happened around the second Bush administration was that China no longer had to be subservient, because their economy started booming, and so they could stand up for their own basic interests. One of the very few things they've pushed for is relative autonomy alongside Taiwan, which is even part of an agreement we ostensibly agree to, while then working to undermine that relationship in every way possible. You are either subservient or an enemy. Hegemony in a nutshell.

The same is largely true of Russia as well. Far from wanting the US as an enemy, Putin even inquired about joining NATO in the Clinton era. I'm sure there were some snickers about 'he doesn't get it, does he'? In fact the CIA initially felt Putin would be a terrible leader since he'd be unable to reign in Russia which was spiraling into chaos and mass criminality in the 90s. Their foresight there was about as accurate as usual.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation

[Paradigma11]

We are talking post 2000s here. What are you referring to with "completely subservient, even to point of a willingness to engaging in self detrimental behavior if demanded." ?

The notion that China is somewhat entitled to dominate its neighbors because it had a bad run 1-2 centuries ago is a bit silly.

[zabana]

and who exactly are we to dictate what a 5000 years old country and civilisation gets to do when we literally fund the mass murder of an entire group of people because it's "God's Promise" ?

[wqaatwt]

> what a 5000 years old country

How is that relevant and how does that entitle to Taiwain? They started colonizing it at about the same time as the Dutch.

> because it's "God's Promise" ?

That’s not the reason.

[somenameforme]

The point is that nobody, certainly not the US, cares about things like territorial integrity or 'human rights.' Recent events have caused the US to have to completely drop the facade, which is in many ways a good thing (even if the situation in question is catastrophic and in no way good). It's all just a pretext to the expansion of power and influence. In the case of Taiwan the history of the country is important. The "Republic of China" was a nationalist force that overthrew dynastic China and eventually managed to unify the country in 1927. They were themselves then overthrown in 1949 by the CCP. Their leadership and forces fled to Taiwan (which was already a part of China), and overthrew the local forces there. The CCP did not pursue them beyond that and so the Civil War ended there.

The Republic of China then tried to gain international recognition as an independent nation but, to this day, basically nobody recognizes them as such. And eventually this led to the emergence of the 'one country, two systems' where China would allow some basic autonomy to the province, yet it would remain a part of China. This was accepted by most of the world, including the US. While simultaneously we then did (and are doing) absolutely everything possible to ensure the emergence of a new civil war in the region. It's not at all because we care about Taiwan (beyond it being in a strategically useful location), but primarily to weaken and destabilize China.

[Paradigma11]

Look, China is a big boy and responsible for its own actions. Taiwan has been an autonomous and sovereign entity for many generations. If China invades Taiwan there most likely will be war, if not then not.

You can always construct some historical and geographical claims and justifications. Haven't you heard, China is a near Arctic nation now.

[wqaatwt]

> The Republic of China then tried to gain

They had it until Nixon decided to recognize PRC instead. So “then” kind of ignores 30 preceding years..

> would allow some basic autonomy

It’s hard to even describe how absurd and nonsensical this statement is. You are sure that you are not mixing up Taiwan and Hong Kong or Macau?

[zabana]

> That's not the reason

humour me then

[wqaatwt]

> about joining NATO in the Clinton era

Same way the Soviets wanted to “join” NATO in the 50s. To effectively castrate it and make it ineffective.

It would have been easier for them to politically and economically dominate Eastern European countries from “within”.

> Hegemony in a nutshell

From Chinese and Russian perspective sure. Especially Russian politicians have seen the entire world through an exceptionally imperialist lens for centuries.

On the other hand the US has probably been the most “benign” hegemony (relative to their power) in history (still a hegemony of course).

[somenameforme]

One of the ways the great empires of old learned to create sustainable empires was by giving an exceptional degree of freedom and liberty to those under their control. The US has not been benign in any way shape or form, but what we have done is become the first empire whose borders are not de jure defined, but instead de facto - driven by extreme behind the scenes influence, manipulation, and violence when necessary.

I lose track of exactly how many countries we dominate, but Wiki gives "at least 81 overt and covert known interventions in foreign elections" with another study offering "64 covert and six overt attempts at regime change". [1] Those were both after WW2, and these are only verified "incidents." And this has been paired alongside endless wars, often on completely false pretext, that have led to the deaths of millions and the displacement of what has likely been hundreds of millions. The recent revelations of US AID are also interesting where a ridiculous chunk of "independent media" worldwide seems to largely be a branch of the US intelligence services.

To call this "benevolent" is of course absurd. It's just a new form of imperialistic hegemony, through any and all perspectives. The only asterisk comes in the fact that since it's based on subterfuge instead of in your face stuff, some people remain mostly ignorant to the ways of the world - I suspect especially so amongst those in the US and without a passport.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

[wqaatwt]

> the first empire

You would have to really loosen the definition of “empire” to call US one.

> I lose track of exactly how many countries we dominate

Go ahead try and list them instead of engaging in silly demagoguery.

> mostly ignorant to the ways of the world

Arguably preferable to being delusional.

[achenet]

you could argue that the Islamic caliphates were also relatively benign, as far as hegemonies go.

[Paradigma11]

Regarding your edited added hegemony aspect. That is only true if you define subservience as curtailing your imperialist ambitions.

When the US was engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq the Bush admin and diplomatic circles floated the idea to get China to take on more responsibility in the South China Sea to help manage those territorial disputes.

After all the US was stretched thin and China had and would gain(ed) so much from the rule based order that surely they would be interested in maintaining the status quo and continue to prosper.

Well, next thing China released a map reaffirming their ridiculous 9 dotted line claims and dashed any hope of a cooperation.