73
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
73 points (79.7% liked)
politics
19136 readers
3618 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The title is mainly clickbait. The bonds they're talking about were sold in 1938 by the US backed Republic of China, which at the time was fighting a civil war with the Peoples Republic of China (Maoists). The RoC lost, and retreated to Taiwan. The PRoC then assumed control of the country, and decided that it wasn't interested in paying the debts of the government it had just vanquished.
However, under international law, when the PRoC took over China, they also assumed responsibility for paying those bond holders. Nobody has gotten them to pay up except the UK when the transfer of Hong Kong was up for consideration.
So basically, this is a 70 year old debt that was taken out against China's former government, and the current government really has no urgency to address it.
As @mazelado pointed out, this is an opinion piece by the Heritage Foundation, so the motivations in writing it are suspect, especially as it's specifically pushing the Biden administration to fight this very old fight. You would have thought that if had really been a pressing matter, Trump would have handled it when he started the US / China tradewar right before COVID, as it was clear Don didn't have any qualms pushing potentially destructive diplomatic policies that were unpopular to the Chinese.
This is a fantastic point. The article sounded correct when I read it, but it felt very obviously biased as well. Your comment here helps me square everything.