4 ms·

> The hysteria is not driven by anything China itself has specifically done. That doesn't seem to be true. Whatever you think about the truth of China's treatm

> The hysteria is not driven by anything China itself has specifically done. That doesn't seem to be true. Whatever you think about the truth of China's treatment of Uighurs or Tibet, clearly people have strong opinions about what china itself has specifically done. And the government's behavior to its own ostensibly unoppressed citizens seems to me to border on dystopia; that again concerns things that China has or has not done. It feels like a bit of facile stubbornness to claim that no criticism of China is legitimate.

xg15 5y ago
Many of those issues (e.g. Tibet) have been known for decades though. And yet up until the last few years, western governments had no problems at all doing business with China despite them. Only in the last few years did those issues suddenly become dealbreakers. That's a bit odd, at least.
- actuator 5y ago
  It is not odd. There is definitely an economic reason and global power aspirations side to it. These are the same western countries otherwise which overlooked a genocide in East Pakistan which is now Bangladesh just because they needed a state for their guerilla warfare against Soviets. When India went to stop the genocide and fight for liberation of Bangladesh, it was threatened with US naval might. Morality is not why they are doing it but that doesn't mean the moral side should not be supported. The other reason being that CCP now has the economic muscle to influence narrative which was reserved to just West till now.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > When India went to stop the genocide and fight for liberation of Bangladesh, it was threatened with US naval might. For others reading, while the parent is entitled to their opinion, that is a very pro-Indian description of events. IIRC, many believe India created the situation in order to split Pakistan in half.
    - actuator 5y ago
      > India created the situation in order to split Pakistan in half. Do you reject what the US ambassador wrote in Blood Telegram itself? As far as I have read, it wasn't that they created the situation, the genocide was already happening; they created a situation for an independent Bangladesh by supporting rebels. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blood_Telegram:_Nixon,_Kissinger,_and_a_Forgotten_Genocide https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blood_Telegram:_Nixon,_K...
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        I certainly wouldn't trust Wikipedia on a politically sensitive issue - the OG disinformation source! There is plenty of evidence on both sides and I unfortunately don't have time for it.
        actuator 5y ago
        Sure, but you had time to make a claim which called out the fact that I had shared. Wikipedia is just quoting whatever US ambassador of that time wrote. You are free to read that from any source. There were moral lapses of the highest order done at that time for convenience. It is a shame that we aren't apologetic for this genocide and haven't given its due and how West had largely ignored it even though Holocaust wasn't even 3 decades back when this happened.
- jahewson 5y ago
  They’re not dealbreakers though, are they? That’s why these students are protesting - it’s their own government they want to act. There were students complaining about Tibet when I was a child, 30 years ago. Given the rise of the social justice movement in the US and events in HK I don’t see anything odd about a resurgence of such concerns from the youth of America. It’s not like these students previously thought it wasn’t a problem - they weren’t even born.
  - xg15 5y ago
    Yes, the (progressive) youth was always protesting - what's odd is that suddenly the government is taking those protests at top priority when for the longest time, they were mostly ignored. While the issues are real, the timing seems very convenient.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > Many of those issues (e.g. Tibet) have been known for decades though. And yet up until the last few years, western governments had no problems at all doing business with China despite them. Only in the last few years did those issues suddenly become dealbreakers. It wasn't sudden at all, but a long-discussed, ongoing issue of international relations: What to do if/when China's economy grows to the point of them becoming a major regional or global power (economy being the necessary component of national power, required for financial and military power). Even 20 years ago, it was a problem for the future. China's GDP was low (but growing), the country was poor (in aggregate, it's still not at all wealthy on an individual level), and as a result, their military and diplomatic power was weak. Still, everyone could see the direction their power was heading. There were two poles of opinions: 1) Embrace China in the international order, share with them its benefits (e.g., the World Trade Organization), accomodate their power, and help them gradually reform and become a democratic country. This idea may seem insane in hindsight but before Xi Jinping, China was opening up. I remember reading (translations) from Chinese internet forums, which had a much richer, sophisticated discussion of democracy and human rights than what I read in the US - democratic reform was a serious topic and many top Chinese leaders supported it to varying degrees. Also, a democratic China would be a lasting foundation for world freedom, peace, and prosperity. Russia would be the only serious outsider. 2) Oppose China: This one is easy to understand, but don't let the simplicity and certainty draw you in. Opposing them will make them an enemy, no matter the nuances, a major threat and cost for generations. Also, we may not prevail in that confrontation: The concentration of economic activity and population in the world will be in East and South Asia, with China geographically in the center of it; imagine China trying to compete with the US for influence in North America. Also, military power depends mostly on economic capacity, and with 4 times the population of the uS, if China becomes even half as rich per capita then their economy will double the US's. The US has never had a foe anywhere near it in economic capacity. The US would be the underdog in the long term (without lots of allies). Option #1 was attempted, even exhausted, for obvious reasons. Now China has grown to present an immediate, not a future, threat. And Xi Jinping has strongly embraced aggressive, nationalistic foriegn policy, including militarily threatening almost all their neighbors (Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, India) and Taiwan; seizing territory in the South China Sea; threatening other countries such as Australia and (economically) European countries; censoring any business that criticizes them; and transforming a reforming, opening country into a brutal dictatorship and cult of personality. As one example: Chinese leaders before Xi (and since Mao) served 10 year terms; Xi did away with that and has become a lifelong dictator, like Mao, Stalin, and others before him. At this point, the options are to oppose them or surrender. The Trump administration certainly didn't help (and was a strategic disaster, because the US's only hope is to balance China's great mass with the alliances that Trump worked to destroy, and which depend on the US's reputation, which Trump also worked to ruin), but by then there was no option but to oppose the Chinese Communist Party.

xg15 5y ago

Many of those issues (e.g. Tibet) have been known for decades though. And yet up until the last few years, western governments had no problems at all doing business with China despite them. Only in the last few years did those issues suddenly become dealbreakers. That's a bit odd, at least.

actuator 5y ago
It is not odd. There is definitely an economic reason and global power aspirations side to it. These are the same western countries otherwise which overlooked a genocide in East Pakistan which is now Bangladesh just because they needed a state for their guerilla warfare against Soviets. When India went to stop the genocide and fight for liberation of Bangladesh, it was threatened with US naval might. Morality is not why they are doing it but that doesn't mean the moral side should not be supported. The other reason being that CCP now has the economic muscle to influence narrative which was reserved to just West till now.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > When India went to stop the genocide and fight for liberation of Bangladesh, it was threatened with US naval might. For others reading, while the parent is entitled to their opinion, that is a very pro-Indian description of events. IIRC, many believe India created the situation in order to split Pakistan in half.
  - actuator 5y ago
    > India created the situation in order to split Pakistan in half. Do you reject what the US ambassador wrote in Blood Telegram itself? As far as I have read, it wasn't that they created the situation, the genocide was already happening; they created a situation for an independent Bangladesh by supporting rebels. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blood_Telegram:_Nixon,_Kissinger,_and_a_Forgotten_Genocide https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blood_Telegram:_Nixon,_K...
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      I certainly wouldn't trust Wikipedia on a politically sensitive issue - the OG disinformation source! There is plenty of evidence on both sides and I unfortunately don't have time for it.
      - actuator 5y ago
        Sure, but you had time to make a claim which called out the fact that I had shared. Wikipedia is just quoting whatever US ambassador of that time wrote. You are free to read that from any source. There were moral lapses of the highest order done at that time for convenience. It is a shame that we aren't apologetic for this genocide and haven't given its due and how West had largely ignored it even though Holocaust wasn't even 3 decades back when this happened.
jahewson 5y ago
They’re not dealbreakers though, are they? That’s why these students are protesting - it’s their own government they want to act. There were students complaining about Tibet when I was a child, 30 years ago. Given the rise of the social justice movement in the US and events in HK I don’t see anything odd about a resurgence of such concerns from the youth of America. It’s not like these students previously thought it wasn’t a problem - they weren’t even born.
- xg15 5y ago
  Yes, the (progressive) youth was always protesting - what's odd is that suddenly the government is taking those protests at top priority when for the longest time, they were mostly ignored. While the issues are real, the timing seems very convenient.
wolverine876 5y ago
> Many of those issues (e.g. Tibet) have been known for decades though. And yet up until the last few years, western governments had no problems at all doing business with China despite them. Only in the last few years did those issues suddenly become dealbreakers. It wasn't sudden at all, but a long-discussed, ongoing issue of international relations: What to do if/when China's economy grows to the point of them becoming a major regional or global power (economy being the necessary component of national power, required for financial and military power). Even 20 years ago, it was a problem for the future. China's GDP was low (but growing), the country was poor (in aggregate, it's still not at all wealthy on an individual level), and as a result, their military and diplomatic power was weak. Still, everyone could see the direction their power was heading. There were two poles of opinions: 1) Embrace China in the international order, share with them its benefits (e.g., the World Trade Organization), accomodate their power, and help them gradually reform and become a democratic country. This idea may seem insane in hindsight but before Xi Jinping, China was opening up. I remember reading (translations) from Chinese internet forums, which had a much richer, sophisticated discussion of democracy and human rights than what I read in the US - democratic reform was a serious topic and many top Chinese leaders supported it to varying degrees. Also, a democratic China would be a lasting foundation for world freedom, peace, and prosperity. Russia would be the only serious outsider. 2) Oppose China: This one is easy to understand, but don't let the simplicity and certainty draw you in. Opposing them will make them an enemy, no matter the nuances, a major threat and cost for generations. Also, we may not prevail in that confrontation: The concentration of economic activity and population in the world will be in East and South Asia, with China geographically in the center of it; imagine China trying to compete with the US for influence in North America. Also, military power depends mostly on economic capacity, and with 4 times the population of the uS, if China becomes even half as rich per capita then their economy will double the US's. The US has never had a foe anywhere near it in economic capacity. The US would be the underdog in the long term (without lots of allies). Option #1 was attempted, even exhausted, for obvious reasons. Now China has grown to present an immediate, not a future, threat. And Xi Jinping has strongly embraced aggressive, nationalistic foriegn policy, including militarily threatening almost all their neighbors (Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, India) and Taiwan; seizing territory in the South China Sea; threatening other countries such as Australia and (economically) European countries; censoring any business that criticizes them; and transforming a reforming, opening country into a brutal dictatorship and cult of personality. As one example: Chinese leaders before Xi (and since Mao) served 10 year terms; Xi did away with that and has become a lifelong dictator, like Mao, Stalin, and others before him. At this point, the options are to oppose them or surrender. The Trump administration certainly didn't help (and was a strategic disaster, because the US's only hope is to balance China's great mass with the alliances that Trump worked to destroy, and which depend on the US's reputation, which Trump also worked to ruin), but by then there was no option but to oppose the Chinese Communist Party.