3 ms·

There may be fake fans but unpopular opinion, I'm one of the real non-Chinese fans. Many of their posts point out tremendous hypocrisy in the west's interactio

There may be fake fans but unpopular opinion, I'm one of the real non-Chinese fans. Many of their posts point out tremendous hypocrisy in the west's interactions with developing countries. As a citizen of the west, these criticisms are valid. >This is ironic because enlightenment ideals would have assumed opening economic ties with China should have led to democratic ideals in China, but that didn’t pan out. The idea that the west opened up with the goal of treating the Chinese equally, is on the surface true, but in reality misleading.... There is a lot of covert/overt activity that is primarily meant to result in regime change, something that I expect would be a negative outcome for the poorer people in China at this stage in development. Many in the west are prescribing that a country forget the recent past and take the actions of its major foreign adversaries (read mass criminals that voluntarily positioned themselves that way) as good faith... I don't think they have the luxury of doing that. The leaders are in power to do what's most beneficial for their population (domestic hyper-development) while avoiding an outcome that rhymes with 'century of opium'...serving western interests is a very low priority, as it should be. This is the century of 'Don't trust, only verify' and I too feel the employed cautious approach is a requirement.

jollybean 5y ago
"The leaders are in power to do what's most beneficial for their population (domestic hyper-development) " Their goal is 'Neo Han Imperial China', a 'Global Power' / 'Centre of the Earth' and to make most states in their direct influence (including Japan) vassals or lesser powers, which they view as their 'normal' place in history. They'll literally grab massive swaths of what the rest of the world regards as either international waters or domestic territory of other nations, and declare them as sovereign - right as everyone watches. Nobody will do anything about it as the maps are redrawn along with history. At the same time, they'll declare 'something something aboriginals in USA' while they put 100's of thousands people in jail on the basis of their ethnicity (Uighurs), move millions of Han into Tibet to secure control, and use every means to force Taiwan to fall just like Hong Kong. And that's without any discussion of internal controls. Authoritarianism aside, there is some degree of legitimacy in their own governance, after all, it's their own, however - the spillover effects are real and their ambitions lie far outside their borders.
- bingbong70 5y ago
  There are multiple ways to characterize every point you are making. China has a long history of being the victim of foreign attacks using these routes, everything you mention is a defensive strategy to protect trade, borders, and the population from international attacks. The sabre rattling in the west doesn't help but only accelerates the push in this direction. Han global supremacy sounds like a projection of western history rather than a reality. Reconnecting trade routes and rebuilding infrastructure in the destroyed empires of Asian history has many positive outcomes for the whole region. I don't we can wave away the feelings of billions of people pulled out of poverty by Chinese economic action. >'something something aboriginals in USA' I don't think we should compare the genocide/robbery of ~100 million natives in the Americas to the Uyghur/Turkic extremism/terrorism/separatism issue in Western China being solved without a military conflict. The brand of Islam (Saudi Wahabism) they now practice and the military training they received from ISIS/AlQ in US controlled parts of Syria/Iraq was/is part of a US strategy to destabilize China for the purpose of regime change. To now call it 'Xinjiang/Uyghur genocide' as many do, rather than a US intelligence led operation to disrupt trade/infrastructure expansion into western Asia is a dishonest characterization. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-china-idUSKBN1840UP https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-chin...
  - jollybean 5y ago
    Aboriginals died mostly by disease, and then over the span of 100's of years, most of it pre-Enlightenment, compare to Qing Dynasty policies and wars at your leisure. This kind of bad moral relativism is at the heart of Chinese logic and it just doesn't hold up. Thankfully the US holds the 5th Fleet in the Gulf and ensure trade, mostly Oil is free for everyone including China who are by far the greatest recipients of Oil. The same thing for Suez, Panama Canal, Red sea and other parts of the world. The peace between Egypt and Isreal is pinned down by the US otherwise. Given a choice between having China take your land/sea, or, having the US patrol it so that either sovereignty is protected - or international waters are kept open - which deal do you think nations will take? Even with having to put up with an ugly US diplomatic corps now and again, everyone will take Option B, it's perennially going to be better than Option A. There's no excuse for doing what's going on in Xinjiang, and arguably Tibet as well, not in 21st century.

jollybean 5y ago

"The leaders are in power to do what's most beneficial for their population (domestic hyper-development) " Their goal is 'Neo Han Imperial China', a 'Global Power' / 'Centre of the Earth' and to make most states in their direct influence (including Japan) vassals or lesser powers, which they view as their 'normal' place in history. They'll literally grab massive swaths of what the rest of the world regards as either international waters or domestic territory of other nations, and declare them as sovereign - right as everyone watches. Nobody will do anything about it as the maps are redrawn along with history. At the same time, they'll declare 'something something aboriginals in USA' while they put 100's of thousands people in jail on the basis of their ethnicity (Uighurs), move millions of Han into Tibet to secure control, and use every means to force Taiwan to fall just like Hong Kong. And that's without any discussion of internal controls. Authoritarianism aside, there is some degree of legitimacy in their own governance, after all, it's their own, however - the spillover effects are real and their ambitions lie far outside their borders.

bingbong70 5y ago
There are multiple ways to characterize every point you are making. China has a long history of being the victim of foreign attacks using these routes, everything you mention is a defensive strategy to protect trade, borders, and the population from international attacks. The sabre rattling in the west doesn't help but only accelerates the push in this direction. Han global supremacy sounds like a projection of western history rather than a reality. Reconnecting trade routes and rebuilding infrastructure in the destroyed empires of Asian history has many positive outcomes for the whole region. I don't we can wave away the feelings of billions of people pulled out of poverty by Chinese economic action. >'something something aboriginals in USA' I don't think we should compare the genocide/robbery of ~100 million natives in the Americas to the Uyghur/Turkic extremism/terrorism/separatism issue in Western China being solved without a military conflict. The brand of Islam (Saudi Wahabism) they now practice and the military training they received from ISIS/AlQ in US controlled parts of Syria/Iraq was/is part of a US strategy to destabilize China for the purpose of regime change. To now call it 'Xinjiang/Uyghur genocide' as many do, rather than a US intelligence led operation to disrupt trade/infrastructure expansion into western Asia is a dishonest characterization. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-china-idUSKBN1840UP https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-chin...
- jollybean 5y ago
  Aboriginals died mostly by disease, and then over the span of 100's of years, most of it pre-Enlightenment, compare to Qing Dynasty policies and wars at your leisure. This kind of bad moral relativism is at the heart of Chinese logic and it just doesn't hold up. Thankfully the US holds the 5th Fleet in the Gulf and ensure trade, mostly Oil is free for everyone including China who are by far the greatest recipients of Oil. The same thing for Suez, Panama Canal, Red sea and other parts of the world. The peace between Egypt and Isreal is pinned down by the US otherwise. Given a choice between having China take your land/sea, or, having the US patrol it so that either sovereignty is protected - or international waters are kept open - which deal do you think nations will take? Even with having to put up with an ugly US diplomatic corps now and again, everyone will take Option B, it's perennially going to be better than Option A. There's no excuse for doing what's going on in Xinjiang, and arguably Tibet as well, not in 21st century.