3 ms·

Is Xi's behavior any different than the nationalist, populist, authoritarian trends elsewhere, just applied to a different context? Based on what I've read, th

Is Xi's behavior any different than the nationalist, populist, authoritarian trends elsewhere, just applied to a different context? Based on what I've read, the South China Sea policies make sense from a certain point of view, that China is the dominant power in the region who can dictate to others without negotiation, and eventually their neighbors must accept that. (That was China's position until the Opium Wars in the mid-19th century demonstrated that China lacked the military power to dictate to or even resist Western nations.) If that is China's long-term plan, then it's the right approach to dictate the status of the South China Sea and view resistance as short-term and ultimately futile. Negotiating would undermine China's standing. It's a backward point of view: The world and China do much better when we manage conflict via democratic institutions based on rights than by might-makes-right. Who longs for the days of great power wars?

vtange 10y ago
IMO it's not Xi that's similar to the current nationalism trend, his China IS the reason it exists. China today is the shining example of how economically successful a country can get by just focusing on the cold hard numbers - no refugees, no human rights, no foreign aid, etc. For years their argument against the West was about why we spend so much time and resources trying to push our ideals to others, when we could take a practical path and be more successful economically
- kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
  > why we spend so much time and resources trying to push our ideals to others. Because that creates political friction, leading to conflict, leading to profitable arms sales. So much of the US's cavalier foreign policy is geared toward propping up the MIC between the periodic big wars it takes on for itself. Eisenhower's warning came true and nobody is doing anything about it.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    Many people genuinely care about human rights and believe they are universal. I know that I do.
    - tfcata 10y ago
      Thank you for your kindness. But it's none of your business.
      - hackuser 10y ago
        > it's none of your business This is a common argument used by those who want to oppress others; here's the flaw in it: I agree! It is none of my business and that's the whole point of liberty: Individuals should have self-determination; that is, freedom. Their choices and interests are none of my business, and they are none of their oppressors' business either. If they don't have the self-determination to control their own lives and express their own interests, then often there isn't much they can do to get it; their oppressors hold the power. That's when other people have a responsibility not to close their eyes to oppression but to do something about it. The goal is not to tell the oppressed what to do, but to give them the freedom to decide and act for themselves. I know I have my self-determination and freedom because of the efforts and sacrifices generations of others have made for me; millions have paid with their lives and their fortunes; more gave up careers, went to jail, suffered ostracism, torture and worse; generations made it their jobs to make laws, creating institutions and more to ensure I have my freedom today. Is my response that it is none of their business? Or do I have a share of the work to do?
        powerapple 10y ago
        people care as long as they are not losing anything. that's how Trump won.
        hackuser 10y ago
        > people care as long as they are not losing anything That's certainly true of some people, but note all the people throughout history (e.g., in my prior comment) who have made great sacrifices for it. If nobody was willing to sacrifice, there would be no freedom or democracy today.
- brilliantcode 10y ago
  Society is judged by how they treat the lowest ranking members and issues. There's a stark difference between West & East here. It's simply a matter of affordability, the West can afford to care about human rights, refugees, giving foreign aid because it can and it believes that it's not a question of politics but an evolution of thinking that emerged as a result of 200+ years of world wide colonialism. It's interesting to see that the East has been unable to take the same route but it's slowly changing in developed democracies like Japan and South Korea.

vtange 10y ago

IMO it's not Xi that's similar to the current nationalism trend, his China IS the reason it exists. China today is the shining example of how economically successful a country can get by just focusing on the cold hard numbers - no refugees, no human rights, no foreign aid, etc. For years their argument against the West was about why we spend so much time and resources trying to push our ideals to others, when we could take a practical path and be more successful economically

kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
> why we spend so much time and resources trying to push our ideals to others. Because that creates political friction, leading to conflict, leading to profitable arms sales. So much of the US's cavalier foreign policy is geared toward propping up the MIC between the periodic big wars it takes on for itself. Eisenhower's warning came true and nobody is doing anything about it.
- hackuser 10y ago
  Many people genuinely care about human rights and believe they are universal. I know that I do.
  - tfcata 10y ago
    Thank you for your kindness. But it's none of your business.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > it's none of your business This is a common argument used by those who want to oppress others; here's the flaw in it: I agree! It is none of my business and that's the whole point of liberty: Individuals should have self-determination; that is, freedom. Their choices and interests are none of my business, and they are none of their oppressors' business either. If they don't have the self-determination to control their own lives and express their own interests, then often there isn't much they can do to get it; their oppressors hold the power. That's when other people have a responsibility not to close their eyes to oppression but to do something about it. The goal is not to tell the oppressed what to do, but to give them the freedom to decide and act for themselves. I know I have my self-determination and freedom because of the efforts and sacrifices generations of others have made for me; millions have paid with their lives and their fortunes; more gave up careers, went to jail, suffered ostracism, torture and worse; generations made it their jobs to make laws, creating institutions and more to ensure I have my freedom today. Is my response that it is none of their business? Or do I have a share of the work to do?
      - powerapple 10y ago
        people care as long as they are not losing anything. that's how Trump won.
        hackuser 10y ago
        > people care as long as they are not losing anything That's certainly true of some people, but note all the people throughout history (e.g., in my prior comment) who have made great sacrifices for it. If nobody was willing to sacrifice, there would be no freedom or democracy today.
brilliantcode 10y ago
Society is judged by how they treat the lowest ranking members and issues. There's a stark difference between West & East here. It's simply a matter of affordability, the West can afford to care about human rights, refugees, giving foreign aid because it can and it believes that it's not a question of politics but an evolution of thinking that emerged as a result of 200+ years of world wide colonialism. It's interesting to see that the East has been unable to take the same route but it's slowly changing in developed democracies like Japan and South Korea.