4 ms·

Seems like apples and oranges. What does any country really have to lose by criticizing Myanmar? Not much. On the other hand, criticizing China comes at a cost

Seems like apples and oranges. What does any country really have to lose by criticizing Myanmar? Not much. On the other hand, criticizing China comes at a cost because they're a powerful country. So countries are probably less willing to do it in general even if they're ideologically aligned with doing it.

sudosysgen 5y ago
This is a good point. However, being allied with the US does not magically make the cost of criticizing China any lesser, and there are Western countries with a stronger reliance on the Chinese economy than many Muslim countries. So is the deciding factor really reliance, or is it rather US-alignment? Besides, there is quite a bit to gain by criticizing enemies of the US and excusing crimes from allies of the US, see for example Muslim countries recognizing Israel at the behest of the US state department, so why is it not the case here also? And the US too is a very powerful nation, even more powerful, yet many Muslim countries critiqued it. I think the truth here is a lot more complex. The contrast between the reporting by western and non-western sources here as well as the factual inaccuracies in reporting and willingness to exaggerate lead me to conclude that while not offending China is a big thing, another is that western reporting is likely exaggerated as happened before when geopolitics made it convenient.
- zepto 5y ago
  > while not offending China is a big thing, another is that western reporting is likely exaggerated Why? If anything it seems likely that most negative reporting on China has been downplayed for years and is now only catching up now that Western governments are less interested in appeasement.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    What appeasement? Western governments were never interested in appeasing, only in profit. Now China is in the way. There are many countries were atrocities of similar scale are happening right now and that don't have much influence. That's the metric for a neutral amount of reporting, and China was over that since the 60s.

sudosysgen 5y ago

This is a good point. However, being allied with the US does not magically make the cost of criticizing China any lesser, and there are Western countries with a stronger reliance on the Chinese economy than many Muslim countries. So is the deciding factor really reliance, or is it rather US-alignment? Besides, there is quite a bit to gain by criticizing enemies of the US and excusing crimes from allies of the US, see for example Muslim countries recognizing Israel at the behest of the US state department, so why is it not the case here also? And the US too is a very powerful nation, even more powerful, yet many Muslim countries critiqued it. I think the truth here is a lot more complex. The contrast between the reporting by western and non-western sources here as well as the factual inaccuracies in reporting and willingness to exaggerate lead me to conclude that while not offending China is a big thing, another is that western reporting is likely exaggerated as happened before when geopolitics made it convenient.

zepto 5y ago
> while not offending China is a big thing, another is that western reporting is likely exaggerated Why? If anything it seems likely that most negative reporting on China has been downplayed for years and is now only catching up now that Western governments are less interested in appeasement.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  What appeasement? Western governments were never interested in appeasing, only in profit. Now China is in the way. There are many countries were atrocities of similar scale are happening right now and that don't have much influence. That's the metric for a neutral amount of reporting, and China was over that since the 60s.