3 ms·

> nevermind that there are constant reforms and improvements to Chinese legal system, the anticorruption drive for instance which the west dismiss as power cons

> nevermind that there are constant reforms and improvements to Chinese legal system, the anticorruption drive for instance which the west dismiss as power consolidation but subsequent analysis has concluded to be a broadly genuine effort This is certainly possible, and I of course applaud anti-corruption policies. We have something of a corruption problem here in the US you may have heard about. The mistrust comes from the fact that the CCP doesn't respect the rule of law. If we had faith in its legal system, then we would have confidence. But we don't. It's also an odd coincidence that anti-corruption has consolidated Xi's power. Anti-corruption efforts need to be independent, lest they too become corrupt efforts. When they're led by those in power, how can they be anything other than a purge? Here's what Wikipedia--citing Willy Lam from the Jamestown Foundation--says the process is: > Investigations by the party's disciplinary bodies are not part of the state judicial system. When an official is detained for an investigation, known as Shuanggui, they are essentially placed under house arrest and are isolated from the outside world. The subject often must endure days of grueling interrogation.[50] Data from the first half of 2014 showed that the conviction rate of those who were investigated in that time period to be around 99%.[50] The CCDI and its local counterparts usually gather evidence covertly well in advance of detaining the subject. Generally, when an official is announced to be under investigation, the CCDI has already collected an overwhelming amount of hard evidence. China scholar Willy Lam also wrote that the CCDI has seen a massive expansion of its powers since Xi's ascension, and that it was increasingly involved in the governance of the state. Lam also contended that the CCDI seemed to be deriving most of its power from Xi Jinping personally. This process is a joke. It cannot be taken seriously. > Again, when did I justify? This is a justification: > Different countries apply different models at different points in development - "rule of law and respect human rights - is simply not a priority for China or many developing nations, where the moral calculus is better spent on attaining other freedoms, chiefly the freedom from want. Here you are justifying China's violation of human rights because they're a developing nation. Plain as day. > Your bad behaviour undermines (but doesn't invalidate) your ability to criticize others, which this open letter and many myopic US arguments couched in moralism refuses to comprehend. If your argument is that the CCP should only listen to perfect governments (or citizens of perfect governments), that's a bad faith argument. If you don't think they need to be perfect, maybe you could list some governments you would listen to, or what standard a government could meet to warrant being an authority on human rights, in your eyes, because numerous governments have spoken out against the CCP's human rights abuses. It's also worth saying that non-governmental organizations like Amnesty International and the UN have as well. Also whistleblowers in the CCP government itself, also people under the CCP's rule, etc. etc. etc. So let's be honest, you're setting an impossible standard so you don't have to take responsibility. > Nor was I suggesting the OPs letter was not warranted, just poorly reasoned and articulated. So how would you articulate it? How do you justify the CCP abducting people, and murdering them by harvesting their organs? Something that, to be clear, the US definitely does not do and has never done. > The 1/3 (open elections) elected a leader that is rapidly dismantling the global order or undermining allies everywhere. Yeah that's how elections work. You live with the results, even when you don't like them and even when they're objectively bad. That's the commitment we have to our values. The CCP could learn from our example. And lest you think I'm being sarcastic here, I'm absolutely not. Free and fair elections are a bedrock principle of any democracy. > ...anyone with passing knowledge of contemporary US history knows vast components are degrading. Which makes these appeal to values arguments particularly unsuccessful. You are again arguing that economic development trumps human rights. To be clear, this is the kind of argument used to justify human rights abuses like abduction, slavery, executions, mass censorship, and other horrors. > You have a much rosier evaluation on the US system than the last 20 year warrants. In the last 20 years, multiple states have rolled back laws on felon disenfranchisement. We've passed significant criminal justice sentencing reform (we have a long way to go here). We weathered the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We passed Obamacare. We've legalized recreational marijuana use in 11 states and DC, and some of those states are reversing convictions and expunging records. We've had the longest economic expansion on record. Oh and we legalized gay marriage. Am I all sunshine and roses about everything that's happened in the last 20 years? Absolutely not. I'm no US apologist. I've read A People's History of the US. I proudly accept being an SJW, and I'm often hypercritical of US policy foreign and domestic. All of which is to say I might be wrong about all kinds of things. I might be overly optimistic. But I'm definitely not uninformed. And even given all that, I can say without hesitation I would never choose CCP-occupied China over the US. And I deeply hope the world won't buy the kinds of arguments you're making. In fact, I hope you come around too :) Everyone can change.

dirtyid 7y ago
This all boils down: > Here you are justifying China's violation of human rights because they're a developing nation. ... > So let's be honest, you're setting an impossible standard so you don't have to take responsibility. Again, I'm not absolving China of their failures and abuses. But I also recognize that currently, China is operating within hegemonic standards set by 70 years of US leadership. That is, the privileged to ignore international laws and norms because as the great power, standard bearer, US set the precedence for such behavior. XJ specifically maps onto hysteric over reaction to post 9/11 attacks. There's a reason that XJ crackdown plays well to domestic audiences besides shared Islamophobic ignorance - there has no been no serious extremist attacks since the security apparatus was established. Great powers with the resources to keep their population safe will do so even if the cost is disproportionate to the risk or if the cost means eating away at domestic rights. This isn't an argument that China has a "moral right" to conduct such abuses like US in their war against terror, both are gross human right violations, rather the precedents set by the largely unchallenged US actions abroad, outside of concerned words like this letter, set the established the allowable scope of of atrocities in the name of security. So if Americans wants to have a credible podium to compel others to reduce their scope of atrocity, then they must also reduce their own. Security follows MAD logic in that regard, no one is willing to do less than what is acceptable. And if free and fair elections are the bedrock, then every American is culpable for setting the bar this low. Personally I wouldn't attribute blame to voters, because I find the US electoral system too imperfect to express populace desires when these conflict with challenge national interest. > You are again arguing that economic development trumps human rights. Economic development IS human rights. It's the basis for establishing the four freedoms Roosevelt preached everyone ought to enjoy - speech, worship, want, fear. There's a reason most Chinese / developing countries are preoccupied with "want" and countries that are victims to extremist attacks over react in response to "fear", because physiology and safety is the base of maslows hierarchy of needs. Not everyone has the luxury of affluence to fulfill everything freedom right now. Sometimes they must choose, moral calculus is not easy when every decision are bad trolley problems. >And I deeply hope the world won't buy the kinds of arguments you're making. In fact, I hope you come around too :) Everyone can change. This is your fundamental misreading of my position. I prefer liberal values as well but understand the conditions they spring from, and the long trajectory it takes / will take to get there in developing countries. All the Asian tigers that the west hoped China would emulate sprung from established authoritarian regimes who grew their economies via protectionism policies until the people reached a level of wealth that made pursuing other freedoms attractive. IMO China will be no different, even accounting current developments in surveillance society. And more specific to the quoted point, my criticism is the lack of US moral consistency and leadership is what makes the Chinese model attractive. And it is. Most developed western country that requires immigration to support their future is being destabilized by massive demographic and social changes, read non white immigration influx no small fault to US ME policy, leading to nativism and populism that's springing up in liberal societies around the world. No one has a solution to this, US is not offering a credible alternative. Nor do they have competing plans to help underdeveloped countries like Chinese B&R. If Chinese integration camps work in XJ, expect it to be adopted elsewhere relabeled as civic lessons with * characteristics. IF BRI works well, expect the many countries it touches to be Sino aligned if not out of ideology but dependence. Focusing on China bad and debt trap is ultimately deflection to the fact that an absence of US moral leadership and inability to address contemporary and global problems is causing people to lose faith in the model that US is championing.

dirtyid 7y ago

This all boils down: > Here you are justifying China's violation of human rights because they're a developing nation. ... > So let's be honest, you're setting an impossible standard so you don't have to take responsibility. Again, I'm not absolving China of their failures and abuses. But I also recognize that currently, China is operating within hegemonic standards set by 70 years of US leadership. That is, the privileged to ignore international laws and norms because as the great power, standard bearer, US set the precedence for such behavior. XJ specifically maps onto hysteric over reaction to post 9/11 attacks. There's a reason that XJ crackdown plays well to domestic audiences besides shared Islamophobic ignorance - there has no been no serious extremist attacks since the security apparatus was established. Great powers with the resources to keep their population safe will do so even if the cost is disproportionate to the risk or if the cost means eating away at domestic rights. This isn't an argument that China has a "moral right" to conduct such abuses like US in their war against terror, both are gross human right violations, rather the precedents set by the largely unchallenged US actions abroad, outside of concerned words like this letter, set the established the allowable scope of of atrocities in the name of security. So if Americans wants to have a credible podium to compel others to reduce their scope of atrocity, then they must also reduce their own. Security follows MAD logic in that regard, no one is willing to do less than what is acceptable. And if free and fair elections are the bedrock, then every American is culpable for setting the bar this low. Personally I wouldn't attribute blame to voters, because I find the US electoral system too imperfect to express populace desires when these conflict with challenge national interest. > You are again arguing that economic development trumps human rights. Economic development IS human rights. It's the basis for establishing the four freedoms Roosevelt preached everyone ought to enjoy - speech, worship, want, fear. There's a reason most Chinese / developing countries are preoccupied with "want" and countries that are victims to extremist attacks over react in response to "fear", because physiology and safety is the base of maslows hierarchy of needs. Not everyone has the luxury of affluence to fulfill everything freedom right now. Sometimes they must choose, moral calculus is not easy when every decision are bad trolley problems. >And I deeply hope the world won't buy the kinds of arguments you're making. In fact, I hope you come around too :) Everyone can change. This is your fundamental misreading of my position. I prefer liberal values as well but understand the conditions they spring from, and the long trajectory it takes / will take to get there in developing countries. All the Asian tigers that the west hoped China would emulate sprung from established authoritarian regimes who grew their economies via protectionism policies until the people reached a level of wealth that made pursuing other freedoms attractive. IMO China will be no different, even accounting current developments in surveillance society. And more specific to the quoted point, my criticism is the lack of US moral consistency and leadership is what makes the Chinese model attractive. And it is. Most developed western country that requires immigration to support their future is being destabilized by massive demographic and social changes, read non white immigration influx no small fault to US ME policy, leading to nativism and populism that's springing up in liberal societies around the world. No one has a solution to this, US is not offering a credible alternative. Nor do they have competing plans to help underdeveloped countries like Chinese B&R. If Chinese integration camps work in XJ, expect it to be adopted elsewhere relabeled as civic lessons with * characteristics. IF BRI works well, expect the many countries it touches to be Sino aligned if not out of ideology but dependence. Focusing on China bad and debt trap is ultimately deflection to the fact that an absence of US moral leadership and inability to address contemporary and global problems is causing people to lose faith in the model that US is championing.