4 ms·

I'll take your reluctance to defend other misdeeds committed by the CCP that I've listed as an admission that they are, indeed, indefensible. Let's finally mov

I'll take your reluctance to defend other misdeeds committed by the CCP that I've listed as an admission that they are, indeed, indefensible. Let's finally move on to this last bit of whataboutism you're clutching. > XJ specifically maps onto hysteric over reaction to post 9/11 attacks. The Uighurs predate the CCP by hundreds of years. They are indigenous to their area of Xinjiang. They've resisted CCP rule--which has been imposed on them unwillingly--and because the CCP hasn't provided a political solution, some have resorted to violence (you might recognize this dynamic from what's happening in Hong Kong right now). The 9/11 attacks had many motivations (Osama bin Laden made them all clear). But "you've annexed our homeland and are systematically erasing our religion and culture" was not one of them. So there is no comparison between the CCP's actions against the Uighurs and the US's actions towards Muslims. The only thing they share, at all, is that the victims are Muslims. The Uighurs aren't immigrants. That's their land. It's a facile comparison, and reflexive whataboutism from a regime so used to playing this card it doesn't even think about it anymore. If you're interested in a truer comparison, look to the US's treatment of Native Americans. Unfortunately that comparison isn't favorable to the CCP at all, because while we certainly committed atrocities when we invaded their homes hundreds of years ago, and while the reservation system has serious flaws, it's absolutely not "re-education" camps holding millions of people outside any rule of law or oversight whatsoever. > Economic development IS human rights. If the CCP is interested in economic development at all costs, why does it have such extreme income inequality? Let me quote the first paragraph from the Wikipedia article "Income inequality in China": > China’s current mainly market economy features a high degree of income inequality. According to the Asian Development Bank Institute, “before China implemented reform and open-door policies in 1978, its income distribution pattern was characterized as egalitarianism in all aspects.”[1] At this time, the Gini coefficient for rural – urban inequality was only 0.16. As of 2012, the official Gini coefficient in China was 0.474, although that number has been disputed by scholars who “suggest China’s inequality is actually far greater.”[2] A study published in the PNAS estimated that China’s Gini coefficient increased from 0.30 to 0.55 between 1980 and 2002. What's actually happening is a relatively small number of CCP elites are exploiting the people of China for their own enrichment. They use the politics of fascism to secure their hold on power, they use their extremely sophisticated and wide-reaching surveillance state to curb dissent, and they leverage their economic might to gag nations around the world. > 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. I 100% agree with this. I'm not arguing that the CCP should listen to the US though, and I'm not arguing that the US should be listened to. I'm arguing that the CCP is a violator of human rights on a scale close to some of the worst in history, and the world should do something about it. > 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. I 100% agree with this too. The problem I have with the CCP is that they argue that they absolutely must violate human rights on staggering scales in order to raise the quality of life for their citizens. This is, I hope obviously, a false choice. China's GDP has no relationship to putting a million Uighurs in camps. Actually that probably cost a lot of money, just like the political unrest in Hong Kong will cost a lot of money as the recession deepens and businesses leave. But if the CCP refuses to see it this way, I'm comfortable playing on this field. Like OP, I call on everyone everywhere to make it known that if you violate human rights anywhere near the level that the CCP does, your economy will not grow. We should expel these regimes from world governing and trade bodies. We should not engage with them economically. Any diplomatic relations must be predicated on their respect for rule of law and human rights. > 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. Not for nothing, but this is a real bad comparison. First of all, almost every nation started out in some way as an authoritarian nation. So if your argument is that you need to spend some time in a fascist incubator before your people can be free, that's pretty dark. Second, the Asian tigers are Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea. It's true that South Korea has a history (again like almost every nation) of authoritarian rule. It's also true that the KMT in Taiwan imposed martial law for decades but has recently blossomed into a vibrant democracy. But Singapore is not a free country, and Hong Kong isn't a country--much less a democracy--at all. (To be clear, Singapore has made great strides and I'm obviously not in charge of who's free and who's not. I'm going off indexes like Freedom in the World and the Press Freedom Index). I'm sure people in the US thought free market principles would liberalize the CCP. I've brought that up elsewhere, even in this thread. That was very wrong, and it's important for us to realize that while economic development is, as you say, necessary to ensure human rights, it's far from sufficient. > 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. Let me introduce you to a place called New York City, one of the most (if not the most) diverse, densely populated places on the planet. We have literally provided a blueprint and a working model for how to build a thriving, multicultural, hyperproductive city. Or feel free to look at other western cities like Amsterdam, Paris, London, Toronto, Los Angeles, Sydney, etc. etc. etc. Of course there are problems, and we need to work seriously to address them. But to my knowledge, we've yet to disappear a million people into a secret camp. --- To be frank, it's clear what the CCP's values are. If you look at the economic development of Guangzhou, Shenzhen and other cities, their investments in growing their influence in the world, their policies to try and change the demographics and politics of states like Xinjiang (migration incentives for Han Chinese to move there) and Hong Kong (housing subsidies, etc.), their aggression in the South China Sea, their development of weapons to threaten their neighbors like Taiwan, their development of a sprawling propaganda and surveillance apparatus, their investment in stealing intellectual property, it's clear what kind of regime we're dealing with. If they were at all interested in multiculturalism, human rights, democracy, the rule of law, healthy political dialogue and dissent, religious freedom, or any other liberal values, they'd invest. They can build an insane metropolis in less than a decade, but they won't build a just court system. They aspire to build a national park system to rival that in the US in a fraction of the time, but they can't countenance rival political parties. It's not because these things are hard. The CCP is obviously capable of doing hard things. It's because these things would be threats to their power.

dirtyid 7y ago
> XJ : 9/11 Of course context varies but doesn't matter in relation to the response being a counter insurgency and domestic security issue. Which XJ is. It's not about GDP, it's about safety and control over security. Atrocities in the interest of that is a false argument, but it's also an predictable response as 9/11 demonstrated. Such comparison is not whataboutism, claiming so is just lazy rhetoric. Bringing up Native American treatment in NA is apt, XJ strategy is ostensibly "residential school" cultural genocide aka absolutely "re-education" with the ultimate goal of forced integration. The difference is China will backup stick of reeducation with carrot of development. XJ will have better infrastructure and growth opportunities than reservations up in Canada that doesn't have road access and water boiling notices. Incidentally Canadian Tribunal on indigenous treatment labelled it has "cultural genocide", but at the end of the day, few cares. Ultimately XJ will fall on the same deaf years as much as US and a handful of allies tries to weaponize it as geopolitical tool. Regardless, refer to explosive Tibet GDP growth and development in the last few years for context. As far as actual cost, building the infrastructure to intern a million is trivial compared to Chinese building capacities. The scope of XJ seems huge but relative to 1.4 billion people, it's literally trivial undertaking. The greater security apparatus throughout China on the other hand to maintain power is much more demanding, internal security budget exceeds that of military. As for other strategies, they tried but it didn't work. The reason why Tibet and XJ are "autonomous regions" is because they were based of soviet oblasts where these regions and minorites retained extraordinary affirmative action privileges. Much more in the west - exemptions from taxes, family planning, bonuses to education enrollment on national test etc. The idea was multiculturalism salad bowl, but the riots and terrorists attacks failed hence integration strategy - the rational was melting pot analogy literally inspired by US and the cities you highlighted. Also these cities you named fails to recognize that multiculturalism is causing undeniable shift in nativism at the national scale, all around the world. A few liberal cities doesn't change the trend. The blue print works for some urban centres who can brain drain the best to build flourishing societies is fails in other contexts. Of course the issue in the west is immigration so the solutions / atrocities are different. Whole of EU delegates war refugees via Turkey. Australia has Nauru Regional Processing Centre. US has your camps and political pressure to Mexico to militarize their migration routes etc. Canada is chill right now, but there's backlash towards multiculturalism model all the same. > Inequality & Corruption This is an intentional Chinese development strategy for anyone versed in the subject matter. Deng wanted to rapidly develop successful economic models via SEZ on coastal cities, then apply these models to the interior provinces which has languished. The pivot towards interior development happening now with goal of total poverty elimination by 2030s. Current per capita GDP is $10,000 (actual forecast is $12,000), followed by complete urbanization and poverty alleviation by 2030, followed by "China Dream" of per capita GDP of $40,000 by 2050. Some of the coastal cities are currently at $20,000 or $40,000 by PPP. Rampant corruption was a tool used to direct state resources to generally meritocratically selected local officials whose opportunities to graft is connected to tied to fulfilling state mandates, i.e. take a little on the side as long as it fulfills X growth goals to meet Y targets established by politburo. This is why Chinese corruption is correlated to growth, against conventional wisdom. The nature of Chinese mixed economy allows state-directed capitalistic development. The problems you highlighted are features (well hacks) not bugs. It's the only country in the world where this is true. Everywhere else corruption leads to stagnation. But excess wealth inequity via corruption also disrupts social stability hence anti-corruption drive. This is posited by Yukon Huang, former World Bank director for China, Russia, and Former Soviet Union Republics. > Tigers & Development The demand for other freedoms doesn't happen until certain levels of economic development is reached. So yes, IMO absolutely "fascist incubator" is a dark but necessary stage towards eventual liberalization, because that's the default path. CPC is consistently responding to peoples needs, there's been legal reforms, environmental improvements etc. People are fixated with money right now, eventually they'll worry about values. The result will likely be something along the lines of Singapore, a rich dictatorship with more western compatible values but all that is dependent on people getting rich first. There's been large regressions under Xi, but overall I'm positive about future trajectory assuming the next phase of income equalization and development and the demographic time bomb can be negotiated successfully. My view is as long as China has GDP of Iraq there will be no broad pressure to purse values - not democracy mind you - HK instability has ruined the Chinese appetite for that. > CCP's values You've just listed all the goals of every great power, some manner of hegemony and political influence like that's somehow explicit to CPC. SCS claims is a multi party dispute by many nations, CPC just happen to be powerful enough to win. Building an military that makes neighbours feel threatened is the natural byproduct of a big country modernizing it's military to fit security needs. Chinese defense spending is only 2% of GDP, lower than her neighbours. Of course, the goal is going to be regional hegemony like Munro doctrine. That's not CPC values, that's just inevitable side affect of great power geopolitics and the natural reaction by neighbors in response should be concern. Like is the CPC not suppose to have an military suitable to her size or have missiles that can hit Taiwan? The island 130km away. Obviously the primary goal for CPC is power and self-survival, but that doesn't mean it doesn't also pursue other policies that improve quality of life, it just so happens those are safety and economically related right now - hence CPC having broad domestic support. Explicitly because Chinese do not want CPC to collapse, they just crawled out of period of anarchy, it's in most Chinese people's self-interest that a competent CPC survives. Again you have the right to call on people to antagonize CPC because you think they're the historical tier bad human rights violator, but I think you'll find that's a profoundly American-centric analysis. Relative to Chinese population, the atrocities happening in China is comparable to US prison industrial complex and wars abroad. No amount of moralizing is going to make such equivocation not true. Just because US dominated social media ceaseless spam China bad and HK protests to the exclusion of all else doesn't mean the rest of the world minus a few staunch US allies will take the bait. It's a filter bubble of American exceptionalism. Ultimately, my argument is you can't eat your morals. So trying to undermine China via moral arguments is fruitless, especially coming from Americans, who, having voting rights is individually culpable for US behaviours that undermines their ability to critique. If the west wants to contain China, they need to offer better alternatives - vaunted US democracy and values is not it. There's a reason why so many nations are taking loans from China and many Indians would trade in their democracy for a few decades of Chinese development. Because it's more appealing than what the west has offered in a long time.

dirtyid 7y ago

> XJ : 9/11 Of course context varies but doesn't matter in relation to the response being a counter insurgency and domestic security issue. Which XJ is. It's not about GDP, it's about safety and control over security. Atrocities in the interest of that is a false argument, but it's also an predictable response as 9/11 demonstrated. Such comparison is not whataboutism, claiming so is just lazy rhetoric. Bringing up Native American treatment in NA is apt, XJ strategy is ostensibly "residential school" cultural genocide aka absolutely "re-education" with the ultimate goal of forced integration. The difference is China will backup stick of reeducation with carrot of development. XJ will have better infrastructure and growth opportunities than reservations up in Canada that doesn't have road access and water boiling notices. Incidentally Canadian Tribunal on indigenous treatment labelled it has "cultural genocide", but at the end of the day, few cares. Ultimately XJ will fall on the same deaf years as much as US and a handful of allies tries to weaponize it as geopolitical tool. Regardless, refer to explosive Tibet GDP growth and development in the last few years for context. As far as actual cost, building the infrastructure to intern a million is trivial compared to Chinese building capacities. The scope of XJ seems huge but relative to 1.4 billion people, it's literally trivial undertaking. The greater security apparatus throughout China on the other hand to maintain power is much more demanding, internal security budget exceeds that of military. As for other strategies, they tried but it didn't work. The reason why Tibet and XJ are "autonomous regions" is because they were based of soviet oblasts where these regions and minorites retained extraordinary affirmative action privileges. Much more in the west - exemptions from taxes, family planning, bonuses to education enrollment on national test etc. The idea was multiculturalism salad bowl, but the riots and terrorists attacks failed hence integration strategy - the rational was melting pot analogy literally inspired by US and the cities you highlighted. Also these cities you named fails to recognize that multiculturalism is causing undeniable shift in nativism at the national scale, all around the world. A few liberal cities doesn't change the trend. The blue print works for some urban centres who can brain drain the best to build flourishing societies is fails in other contexts. Of course the issue in the west is immigration so the solutions / atrocities are different. Whole of EU delegates war refugees via Turkey. Australia has Nauru Regional Processing Centre. US has your camps and political pressure to Mexico to militarize their migration routes etc. Canada is chill right now, but there's backlash towards multiculturalism model all the same. > Inequality & Corruption This is an intentional Chinese development strategy for anyone versed in the subject matter. Deng wanted to rapidly develop successful economic models via SEZ on coastal cities, then apply these models to the interior provinces which has languished. The pivot towards interior development happening now with goal of total poverty elimination by 2030s. Current per capita GDP is $10,000 (actual forecast is $12,000), followed by complete urbanization and poverty alleviation by 2030, followed by "China Dream" of per capita GDP of $40,000 by 2050. Some of the coastal cities are currently at $20,000 or $40,000 by PPP. Rampant corruption was a tool used to direct state resources to generally meritocratically selected local officials whose opportunities to graft is connected to tied to fulfilling state mandates, i.e. take a little on the side as long as it fulfills X growth goals to meet Y targets established by politburo. This is why Chinese corruption is correlated to growth, against conventional wisdom. The nature of Chinese mixed economy allows state-directed capitalistic development. The problems you highlighted are features (well hacks) not bugs. It's the only country in the world where this is true. Everywhere else corruption leads to stagnation. But excess wealth inequity via corruption also disrupts social stability hence anti-corruption drive. This is posited by Yukon Huang, former World Bank director for China, Russia, and Former Soviet Union Republics. > Tigers & Development The demand for other freedoms doesn't happen until certain levels of economic development is reached. So yes, IMO absolutely "fascist incubator" is a dark but necessary stage towards eventual liberalization, because that's the default path. CPC is consistently responding to peoples needs, there's been legal reforms, environmental improvements etc. People are fixated with money right now, eventually they'll worry about values. The result will likely be something along the lines of Singapore, a rich dictatorship with more western compatible values but all that is dependent on people getting rich first. There's been large regressions under Xi, but overall I'm positive about future trajectory assuming the next phase of income equalization and development and the demographic time bomb can be negotiated successfully. My view is as long as China has GDP of Iraq there will be no broad pressure to purse values - not democracy mind you - HK instability has ruined the Chinese appetite for that. > CCP's values You've just listed all the goals of every great power, some manner of hegemony and political influence like that's somehow explicit to CPC. SCS claims is a multi party dispute by many nations, CPC just happen to be powerful enough to win. Building an military that makes neighbours feel threatened is the natural byproduct of a big country modernizing it's military to fit security needs. Chinese defense spending is only 2% of GDP, lower than her neighbours. Of course, the goal is going to be regional hegemony like Munro doctrine. That's not CPC values, that's just inevitable side affect of great power geopolitics and the natural reaction by neighbors in response should be concern. Like is the CPC not suppose to have an military suitable to her size or have missiles that can hit Taiwan? The island 130km away. Obviously the primary goal for CPC is power and self-survival, but that doesn't mean it doesn't also pursue other policies that improve quality of life, it just so happens those are safety and economically related right now - hence CPC having broad domestic support. Explicitly because Chinese do not want CPC to collapse, they just crawled out of period of anarchy, it's in most Chinese people's self-interest that a competent CPC survives. Again you have the right to call on people to antagonize CPC because you think they're the historical tier bad human rights violator, but I think you'll find that's a profoundly American-centric analysis. Relative to Chinese population, the atrocities happening in China is comparable to US prison industrial complex and wars abroad. No amount of moralizing is going to make such equivocation not true. Just because US dominated social media ceaseless spam China bad and HK protests to the exclusion of all else doesn't mean the rest of the world minus a few staunch US allies will take the bait. It's a filter bubble of American exceptionalism. Ultimately, my argument is you can't eat your morals. So trying to undermine China via moral arguments is fruitless, especially coming from Americans, who, having voting rights is individually culpable for US behaviours that undermines their ability to critique. If the west wants to contain China, they need to offer better alternatives - vaunted US democracy and values is not it. There's a reason why so many nations are taking loans from China and many Indians would trade in their democracy for a few decades of Chinese development. Because it's more appealing than what the west has offered in a long time.