4 ms·

As the article says, China learned it from the US. In the past, they have justified it by saying that they're just doing the same thing that the US did in its W

by pkkim 6y ago

As the article says, China learned it from the US. In the past, they have justified it by saying that they're just doing the same thing that the US did in its War on Terror. I wish the US could lead on this with moral authority, but in order to credibly do so I think it will have to reckon with its own actions. If we instead simply redouble sanctions enforcement, that _could_ work but from the Chinese perspective it would be humiliating capitulation to force. More likely it would just strengthen the resolve of the CCP to continue on its path in Xinjiang.

perl4ever 6y ago
>I wish the US could lead on this with moral authority, but in order to credibly do so I think it will have to reckon with its own actions How does that work? Is there a global arbiter of moral authority? Is there an international court that can say "you now have moral authority; go forth and use it wisely"? Why can't China just say, no matter what..."no, we don't think you have moral authority"? Sincerely or not. Why wouldn't the Chinese government think it is the authority? I was just reading some of George Orwell's letters from the 1940s, and it's amazing to read his observations of the politics in Britain without the benefit of hindsight. Germany certainly didn't recognize Britain's moral authority to criticize them, in the context of their crumbling empire. I can't remember where I read an anecdote, but supposedly a Brit in one of their colonies was explaining to a draftee why the war was worth fighting, and they said something like "Each country should be ruled by its own people; Britons should rule Britain; Germans should rule Germany; but Germany has been upsetting the normal order of things..." And the African draftee went (it was implied) hmmm...
- jlokier 6y ago
  > How does that work? Is there a global arbiter of moral authority? In a sense, yes there is a collective global arbitration process among many countries, consisting of international opinion, persuasiveness, respect, influence, trade relations, diplomacy, and generally all the things called "soft power". It's not a formal system, yet has considerable power to influence events inside countries nonetheless. Persuasiveness and respect are part of the mechanism by which such influence has an effect, and that's where percieved moral authority comes in. Rather than posit some judge that decides if a country does or does not have actual moral authority, perhaps it's more accurate to say the perception of moral authority is key component of effective influence. Interesting observation about Orwell's letters, btw.

by pkkim 6y ago

perl4ever 6y ago

>I wish the US could lead on this with moral authority, but in order to credibly do so I think it will have to reckon with its own actions How does that work? Is there a global arbiter of moral authority? Is there an international court that can say "you now have moral authority; go forth and use it wisely"? Why can't China just say, no matter what..."no, we don't think you have moral authority"? Sincerely or not. Why wouldn't the Chinese government think it is the authority? I was just reading some of George Orwell's letters from the 1940s, and it's amazing to read his observations of the politics in Britain without the benefit of hindsight. Germany certainly didn't recognize Britain's moral authority to criticize them, in the context of their crumbling empire. I can't remember where I read an anecdote, but supposedly a Brit in one of their colonies was explaining to a draftee why the war was worth fighting, and they said something like "Each country should be ruled by its own people; Britons should rule Britain; Germans should rule Germany; but Germany has been upsetting the normal order of things..." And the African draftee went (it was implied) hmmm...

jlokier 6y ago
> How does that work? Is there a global arbiter of moral authority? In a sense, yes there is a collective global arbitration process among many countries, consisting of international opinion, persuasiveness, respect, influence, trade relations, diplomacy, and generally all the things called "soft power". It's not a formal system, yet has considerable power to influence events inside countries nonetheless. Persuasiveness and respect are part of the mechanism by which such influence has an effect, and that's where percieved moral authority comes in. Rather than posit some judge that decides if a country does or does not have actual moral authority, perhaps it's more accurate to say the perception of moral authority is key component of effective influence. Interesting observation about Orwell's letters, btw.