If China gets Balkanized...

"The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide"

This got started in the thread about how China's economy is seemingly on the verge of collapse, but in order not to derail it too much figured I'd start a new topic.

Basically, what if China does go south very quickly after its economic bubble pops? What would be the consequences if China's government completely breaks down?

I'm thinking it might turn out something like Romance Of The Three Kingdoms, but with nuclear bombs. Would be interesting if after the crazy atomic filled death of civil war, the victorious warlord declares himself (or herself) the new Emprah. I don't find it likely that Tibet and Uighuristan will keep their independence in the long run - the Han would eventually team up against them again, given enough time to reunify. As for Taiwan, I think by this point they are satisfied being an island nation, and wouldn't try to intercede with the mainland.

Disagree that China would take back Uighurstan/Xinjiang and Tibet. In the case of the former, there are enough Turkestanis (central asians) in general to counter Han ethnic interference this time, and in the case of the latter, the period of reconstruction of Han Chinese society would be long enough before they even tried to retake Tibet that Tibet would have the international support needed to protect it, especially since it already has a government.

If international opinion meant that much, they wouldn't still be in Tibet right now. When it comes down to it, we are all too afraid of China to actually do anything to really help Tibet. Not sure that situation would change much if the leadership changed from Business Suit wearing types to a Generalisimo type. If anything, we'd try to appease China even more if it was ruled by a ruthless Emperor who rose to the top on a mountain of corpses.

The situation 60 years ago is not the situation right now. Back then, China was very good buddies with Russia, India was just coming out of colonial rule, and a Cold War is on. If the situation in a balkanization were to happen anytime in the near future, things would be different.

MGIFOS, I think that's oversimplifying things just a bit. Even if a balkanized China was brought back together by force, it's not like the re-united country will be right back where it was in terms of infrastructure or power. At the very least, civil wars tend to be rather messy affairs in general.

Although some of it was deliberate by a vengeful north, it took about a decade after the American Civil War for the south to get back on its feet, and the pre-ACW south wasn't exactly hyper-industrialized in the first place. (Yes, this, too, is oversimplifying things a bit. This thread isn't about the ACW, though, and I'm a bit fuzzy on the fine details anyway.)

edited 1st Nov '11 11:34:24 PM by Nohbody

a lot would be dependent on the nature and duration of "chaos period".

Xinjiang and Tibet already have Han minority. Chaos might push more Han refugees to Tibet and Xinjiang. successful independence might cause Han minority to flee back to "China proper".

I agree with Taiwan will satisfied with island nation and probably don't try to re-conquer the mainland. a lot of refugee could change that however.

Emperor unlikely to happen, even if one man rule all China, President or other modern and Democratic title probably managed to hold.

major Civil War like Three Kingdom is very unlikely. most chinese have two parents and four grandparents, their would not likely support their sons risk their lives. Beside Ancient China was bastion of civilization, surrounding by barbarian, on modern day, Civil War in China, would cause massive refugee crisis, with large number of chinese seeking better lives in America, Canada, South America, and SE Asia.

Eh... though it may end up being better in the long run, we'd be ultrafucked in the short run via price increase, cost of intervention, etc.

From the other thread:

That is what the Ottomans said to the Armenians.

What. The. Fuck.

That's also what the Algerians said to their French colonialists (the overwhelming majority of which made it out to France alive). IIRC, Anglo-indians were also encouraged to leave by the Indians after independence: About three-fourths of them left, I don't think most would choose to leave their homes voluntarily. They weren't victims of genocide either.

Many countries in Africa kicked out most of their Euro colonists (in retrospect, it was a bad move: It meant brain drain and an Europe that didn't give a fuck), without genocide.

I don't think that desettlement neccessarily means genocide. It's possible to incentivize or bully a colonial group into going back home.

edited 2nd Nov '11 4:32:11 PM by SavageHeathen

I don't think China will really destabilize like the Balkans did. Most of China is overwhelmingly racially and culturally homogeneous, compared with the Balkans and a large part of Africa which are basically countries composed of many different tribes, factions, and other cultural groups. Furthermore, many of these groups have had long histories of hostility with one another, and it's this splitting along cultural lines that really leads to internal unrest and civil war. Apart from some of the outer regions of China, the country is almost completely Han Chinese, so I'd expect that destabilization and financial collapse not to lead to cultural ruin and splintering.

The expulsion of Germans from East Central and East Europe was ethnic cleansing, and did result in over 2m dead. I leave it at that before I get thumped.

Well I suppose the overarching theme is an evil Han mass assimilating all in its path.

The situation isn't nearly as black and white as you would like it to be.

For instance, let's look at Tibet:

• Tibetan temples and clergy are being supported by the current government, and the local Tibetans have a struggle between secular teachers being paid less than the clergy which is causing domestic friction, the Tibetans want it the other way around... so what type of government forms after independence?
• China utilises UNESCO to protect most heritage sites, culture and minority languages in the area... no China, you can still have UNESCO but balkanisation war is likely to destroy a lot
• What are the boundaries of the Tibetan nation? The last time they were independent was 700 years ago, when they were conquered by the Mongols and incorporated into Yaun Dynasty China. These days, there's no clear borders whatsoever because it's been on/off part of China over those centuries. So Tibetans are just sorta spread through the provinces.
• China is pouring 100s of billions of USD each year into building schools, housing and roads. If a civil war swept in, all that is gone and Tibet itself has basically no resources whatsoever. The reason it survived in the past was because it was a harsh mountainous region. Unless they're happy to live with a low GDP per capita (I mean, it's certainly possible to live happily with low GDP per capita), then they'll have to be a part of China one way or another to succeed economically in the international marketplace.

Let's look at Xinjing:

• It's hardly ever been united, so there's no such thing as Turkestan. The area has, however, been totally conquered by one warlord or another now and again but the ethnic groups aren't the same. In fact, even right now, while talking about "Uyghurs" (I think it was mentioned in the other thread) are actually just another ethnic group there. There are larger muslim ethnicities that don't have problems with Han because they have long had well recognised rights (as part of the pan-ethnic nationalism back in the early 20th century). So in fact, if you gave power to the Uyghurs, you are necessarily depowering the other muslim Turkic tribes. Don't lump all ethnic groups together.
• It was only until recently that the area was basically Afghanistan with nomadic tribes. The "Go West" campaign in China built up infrastructure, school and roads. It was not asked for and the bigger problem was that it was all built by Han professionals (doctors, engineers, lawyers), therefore, they had a huge influx of Han to a largely uneducated Turkic population. So you can imagine who got all the top jobs and such. However, if you think the solution is to kill all the Han, then now you're left with no professionals to run that society and the infrastructure falls into disarray. The better solution is simply to train up the local Turkic population to match the education of the Han.
• Back when the Silk Road still existed, this area was fairly rich. Today when the main shipping routes are on the coast, the only way they get money is via taxation of the coastal provinces and shifting the money to Xinjiang. What to do when that's not an option? Not much.

So you can claim all you want that China is big and evil and oppressive and the Han are nasty or whatever, but when you actually take a look at it, it's basically as complicated as any other Western separatist movement. Do Anglophones rape, murder and pillage the francophones in Canada? Does Spain commit genocide against the Basque people? There are problems, but they're fixable, and asking for balkanisation as a solution usually just equates to "I don't give a crap about the country, let's just kill 10s of millions and see if it gets better".

edited 2nd Nov '11 8:42:45 AM by breadloaf

Do the Protestants commit genocide against the Catholics?

@ Savage, Savage:

...it was other way around. The Empires left Africa, they weren't kicked out by the locals — basically, because the European States couldn't afford it after World War II (and American pressure — uhem, the Americans bullied the Empires to leave, and later, yes, local movements). It's one of the sources of Africa's many problems.

Genocide came later, between the Tribal Groups that formed the Countries.

And China? Well, I don't think China's ever had Democracy and Balkanisation? I think it's unlikely.

edited 2nd Nov '11 10:00:03 AM by Greenmantle

... If it becomes more like Dynasty Warriors, I'm in.

edited 2nd Nov '11 10:40:50 AM by Psyga315

Colonial authorities packed up and left. In heir wake, the colonists themselves either went back home or stayed, to a varying degree. Whether they were encouraged to leave or tolerated seems to have been the deciding factor.

Let's put another example: If the Saharaui managed to militarily retake their country, they'd have to kick the Moroccans out: Morocco sent enough of its own civilians to forcibly grab a majority on the occupied territory, a classical Lebensraum-style grab. The Chinese made sure that Han settlers outnumbered native Mongolians in Chinese-occupied Mongolia, and they tried to do the same with both the Uyghurs and the Tibetans.

Immigration is cool when it's individuals doing it for their own personal reasons. It's not cool when an expansionistic power sends hundreds of thousands or millions of nationalistic settlers to reclaim your homeland for their own country.

edited 2nd Nov '11 10:46:20 AM by SavageHeathen

On Tibet -

First of all, Tibet was independant as recently as 1950, not 700 years ago. Were they under British protectorate? Yeah, but it kept its traditional borders.

Second, there is already a ready government to govern Tibet if China were to falter. Whether or not it has to modify itself is an open question, but considering the Dalai Lama is unlikely to insist he be the head of that government, its quite likely the transition would be quite easy.

Third, I don't see how UNESCO is relevant in a discussion about whether or not Tibet becomes free or not.

Fourth, the Indians would be more than happy to support a buffer state between itself and China. Thats the entire reason why Nepal still even exists.

Now for Uighurstan/Xinjiang -

Turkestan hasn't been united as a nationstate because the very concept did not exist when these states were last independant. In the age of nationalism and regionalism, the other states will support East Turkestan's ascendance to the world scene. Never said they'd annex the thing, just that they would ensure it remains sovereign.

Also never said kill the Han, nor do I advocate it. Merely that I think alot of people, including locals, have alot to gain from being independant. As for professionals, that would be where the rest of Central Asia, Russia, and even India would fall in. It would be in their interest to keep an independant East Turkestan.

The option for trade is to traverse north-south, like the rest of central Asia.

I'm far more harsh than you.

I belief that the Han should be at the hard end of a lesson about Karma.

I can only presume that Breadloaf is a member of the 50-cent party. Why don't you go back to trying to convince us that your infrastructure isn't a bunch of sub-par crap.

Turkey will also have a big role in Zinjiang.

edited 2nd Nov '11 12:23:47 PM by Hurricane_Delta

Another thing that people are ignoring is that "Han" are not the only group of "Chinese dialect speaking" peoples, and that the Han are pretty hostile to other Chinese speakers, like the Manchu (basically treated like Black people in the USA) - though they have become a bit more tolerant in recent years, even allowing Manchu exemption to the one-child policy and affirmative action programs to get manchu children into universities. Here's a good breakdown of the major ethnic groups in China:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_China

edited 2nd Nov '11 2:45:12 PM by MyGodItsFullofStars

It is for that reason why I don't see the Han having such an easy time of it should the state fall to collapse. Thank you for bringing this up.

Savage, the stark hypocrisy here is rich. Civil rights are sacred, until it's someone you don't like—and hell, don't seem to know much of anything about, given breadlaof's "hey, this isn't even all one cultural/ethnic group we're talking about here."

You're the one who says even a single civil rights misstep is grounds for the public execution of an official, and yet you're encouraging blanket ethnic relocation and, mostly likely, cleansing, without even bothering to make an excuse of "we'll try to check for innocence/guilt?"

That's absurd.

The problem has no easy answer: When a hostile foreign power imports a bazillion settlers to secure political control of your homeland by themselves, it's not a situation that presents any non-ugly fix.

The Uyghurs and Tibetans want independence. The Han settlers don't: In fact, they've been one of the tools the PRC government uses to control the native population. Decolonization does not mean genocide. Let's say a hostile foreign power imports enough of its citizens (during occupation) into your territory, with the express goal of securing a majority for themselves.

Once that crucial step is taken, they start oppressing the native population. Such foreign power collapses. You can choose to tolerate the colonists or kick them out. Tolerating them is the good thing, but that means they'll keep your country subjugated to the foreign power they hail from. You can also kick them out: It's not an easy choice, and I acknowledge forced displacement is a crime against humanity, but the only other option is perpetual foreign (Han) rule of their colonies. Han rule is neither benevolent nor acceptable: In fact, it's quite iron-fisted.

No matter what's done, things get ugly. There no clean solution for decolonizing after the occupiers get a demographic majority. Occupation is horrible, and there's no non-ugly way to get rid of it. It's a zero-sum game, and the question boils down to: Who gets screwed? I'd much rather have the colonists getting the short end of the stick, instead of the colonized. I think it's the same with the Palestinians: They should get to kick the settlers out (the settlers oppress the Palestinians in their own fucking country).

I'm all for migration and freedom of movement, but I'm against colonization (colonization is establishing your migrants as a ruling class over a the native population of a conquered territory).

@Octo: Fuck, I was misinformed about the expulsion of Germans: Now that I've checked the statistics, they look an awful lot like a genocide. 2'5 million German civvies disappearing can't be attributed to standard NKVD brutality. I was dead wrong, and I apologize to any German that I might have offended. I'm no genocide denialist.

edited 2nd Nov '11 4:11:55 PM by SavageHeathen

"Kick the colonists out" makes sense if you do it within a reasonable time frame after it happened. We're not talking about right after, though, we're talking about generations later.

I don't think I'd support Palestine kicking the colonists out, either, in that case. I'd support Israel withdrawing the colonists themselves—and likewise, to keep this analogy on track, the Chinese in this case—but not Palestine or Xinjing(?) doing so after gaining independence.

Like you say, if you can't do something without guaranteeing the sanctity of civil rights, why should we let you do it? Aren't you the one who's all for destroying culture you don't like? They could just do aggressive cultural conditioning instead. I don't endorse that, either, but if given a horrific binary choice between forced resettlement (unacceptable and a war crime, insofar as I care) and cultural propaganda conditioning, I'd choose the latter.

There are alternatives to forced, violent resettlement, mostly involving annoying the fuck out of the settlers so that they leave of their own accord.

• You could enact draconian affirmative action programs in favor of the native population. Pretty much barred from public higher education or government jobs in a socialist economy, the settlers would go back to China on their own (That's how the Tamil shook off Brahmin dominance in India).
• Separatists might gerrymander the fuck out of the electoral system, or execute anyone found to be conspiring with Beijing (these are dickish, but far from uncommon).
• Alternatively, they could disfranchise or deport anybody who refused to give up Chinese nationality after independence (countries can refuse to recognize dual nationality, so this one is not particularly dickish).

Admittedly the tactics are dirty, evil and underhanded, but they're no dirtier than occupation itself. This is a case of Black On Black Morality.

edited 2nd Nov '11 4:43:03 PM by SavageHeathen

All of these suggestions are disgusting, but I don't really know why I would want to debate such a thing with you in the first place.

Anyway, I don't think China will Balkanize. The Chinese cultural identity, as I understand it, highly values order and discipline in government and politics. With ~1.3+ billion people, I think that's enough cultural hold to keep the nation together through tough times.

Maybe for the Han Homeland on the east side of the Country.

But many of the minorities have been massively persecuted and are unlikely to take any compromise from a new government out of mistrust of the Han. Especially in the Most Triumphant Examples of the Uyghurs and Tibetans.

I want to see justice for the Tibetans and Uyghurs. I'll let them decide what to do to the settlers.