List 2 geographical reasons why governing a united china might be difficult?

1. trade would be hard in china considering the mountains and 2. desserts also make it hard to travel across

First; China, stretching a 9.6 million square Kilometers tends to be divided into four regions consisting of the North, the South, North East and the Qinghai-Tibetan areas.

Part of the north and Eastern regions especially the coast, exude trade paradigms and cultural diversity, while Western regions are covered with mountainous, landlocked features they construe great difficulties in building and modifications into industries and modern technologies and still there tends to be a tedious struggle to establish transport, connection and trade routes because of natural caused inaccessibility hence limited to the required swift governance.

The Central and South of China are covered with sufficient rainfall and plentiful water bodies, and so cities comprising of Chongqing, Suzhou, Wuxi and Shanghai have over a period of time extolled by the existing natural resources and development.

Second; Due to geographical variations, populations of each region have contrasting life styles, customs and norms and because each part or province adheres to its own standards, areas such as Qinghai, Tibet and Xigjiang are always on struggle to produce sufficient aliments and resources to support its population and therefore, uniting it to the Eastern region has had undefined repudiations.

2345tiljfds

explanation:

qrt4asdp97'8py'/lijh ngbfd

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )