5 ms·

only an American could say this with a straight face. the horrors the US inflicted on other countries in the last several decades is so many times greater than

by bllguo 4y ago

only an American could say this with a straight face. the horrors the US inflicted on other countries in the last several decades is so many times greater than anything China has ever done. most importantly, stop projecting American imperialist attitudes onto China. there is zero indication of China trying to spread the systems you are so afraid of. funny how the "neutral global citizen" is interested in preserving a system that just happens to benefit the west at the expense of the global south.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throwaway236987 4y ago
> there is zero indication of China trying to spread the systems you are so afraid of Zero? Not convincing. China expanding the territory of its recent political and social systems looks clear to people watching from outside China. Examples: Tibet, Hong Kong recently, and Taiwan is officially a someday target. Nearby countries understandably worry they are on the someday list as well, more since South China Sea activities and the artificial islands being constructed. China calls these system expansions "internal" because everywhere the systems expand to is deemed "really" China already. But most people who live there didn't (or don't) want it, and have lost (or would lose) access to ways of life, human rights and freedoms that they previously had and cherished that are under discussion in this thread. (It's a bit like Russia's view that Ukraine is "really" part of Russia so the invasion is not an invasion, and the annexation of Crimea was not an annexation. Whatever you think of history, one way or another those actions obviously spread the current Russian system to more territory and people, most of whom don't want it. The parallels to China and Taiwan (and previously China and Tibet) are strong enough that many words have been written saying that's why China chose not to condemn Russia in either case.)
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  Tibet, Hong Kong and Taiwan are all historically part of China. Legally speaking, China is on very strong footing in claiming all three territories. No one even disputes Chinese sovereignty over Tibet and Hong Kong, as far as I'm aware. Everyone recognizes that Taiwan has legally been part of China since 1945 (it became part of China in the 1680s, but Japan took it as a prize of war in 1895 and had to give it back at the end of WWII). The complication there is that China had a civil war, the former government of China retreated to Taiwan, and the territory has grown apart over the decades. But it's not as if China is just randomly making up territories to claim. It's claiming very specific territories that it has a strong legal claim to.
  - throwaway236987 4y ago
    > Tibet, Hong Kong and Taiwan are all historically part of China. Legally speaking, China is on very strong footing in claiming all three territories. Legal claims, justified or not, are imho irrelevant to the current discussion point, which is whether China wishes to spread its political and social systems to large numbers more people, and whether there is an international ethical obligation to resist that. That's why I mentioned the parallel with Russia, which "claims" Ukraine. That claim is irrelevant: Even if the legal claim was justified, it would still be an invasion, because the Ukrainians don't want to be invaded or be subjgated to Russian rule. > No one even disputes Chinese sovereignty over Tibet That statement is false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_sovereignty_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_sovereignty_debate A great many people have disputed Chinese sovereignty over Tibet ever since the annexation of 1959, and they still dispute it and protest against Chinese rule. As for "spreading of systems": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet > and Hong Kong Legal sovereignty of a sort is not disputed there. But it does come tainted, as China took control on the condition of a "two systems" treaty about how to treat the people before the handover, and broke that treaty soon after. It is not clear the territorial handover would have occurred so easily if it was known in advance that China would dishonour its commitment to the people. As a result of breaking that treaty, it can be said that China has in fact violated some aspects of territorial legal sovereignty in Hong Kong, because those aspects were not China's legal right to take. But "legal claims" and "specific territories" have no bearing on the point of discussion in this thread, which is whether China has "zero" ambition to spread its political and social systems Tibet and Hong Kong are examples where it has spread its recent political and social systems to large numbers more people than before, removing cherished human rights and freedoms from them against their will. It says it wants to do it in Taiwan. So "zero" ambition to spread its systems is nonsense. I think your argument is that other countries don't need to worry about China spreading its systems further. That may or may not be justified, it's hard to tell. The South China Sea activities could have been collaborative projects with other countries in the region, but they are not, and that understandably makes those countries wary. China does not have a recent history of being particularly trustworthy (Hong Kong broke that), or sane (the "diplomacy" around Taiwan is bonkers), and talk of its ambitions being limited will be taken by some as merely a way to gain their cooperation until it's sufficiently powerful to change its mind. In any case, the discussion was about people and ethics, and the spread of political and social systems which take away rights and freedoms, and where there's an ethical obligation towards those people. I think there's a good case for countries, legal claims, and historical control, being irrelevant to that.
djohnston 4y ago
More people died during Mao's Great Leap Forward than all US wars combined since 1776, it's not even close.

by bllguo 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

throwaway236987 4y ago

> there is zero indication of China trying to spread the systems you are so afraid of Zero? Not convincing. China expanding the territory of its recent political and social systems looks clear to people watching from outside China. Examples: Tibet, Hong Kong recently, and Taiwan is officially a someday target. Nearby countries understandably worry they are on the someday list as well, more since South China Sea activities and the artificial islands being constructed. China calls these system expansions "internal" because everywhere the systems expand to is deemed "really" China already. But most people who live there didn't (or don't) want it, and have lost (or would lose) access to ways of life, human rights and freedoms that they previously had and cherished that are under discussion in this thread. (It's a bit like Russia's view that Ukraine is "really" part of Russia so the invasion is not an invasion, and the annexation of Crimea was not an annexation. Whatever you think of history, one way or another those actions obviously spread the current Russian system to more territory and people, most of whom don't want it. The parallels to China and Taiwan (and previously China and Tibet) are strong enough that many words have been written saying that's why China chose not to condemn Russia in either case.)

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
Tibet, Hong Kong and Taiwan are all historically part of China. Legally speaking, China is on very strong footing in claiming all three territories. No one even disputes Chinese sovereignty over Tibet and Hong Kong, as far as I'm aware. Everyone recognizes that Taiwan has legally been part of China since 1945 (it became part of China in the 1680s, but Japan took it as a prize of war in 1895 and had to give it back at the end of WWII). The complication there is that China had a civil war, the former government of China retreated to Taiwan, and the territory has grown apart over the decades. But it's not as if China is just randomly making up territories to claim. It's claiming very specific territories that it has a strong legal claim to.
- throwaway236987 4y ago
  > Tibet, Hong Kong and Taiwan are all historically part of China. Legally speaking, China is on very strong footing in claiming all three territories. Legal claims, justified or not, are imho irrelevant to the current discussion point, which is whether China wishes to spread its political and social systems to large numbers more people, and whether there is an international ethical obligation to resist that. That's why I mentioned the parallel with Russia, which "claims" Ukraine. That claim is irrelevant: Even if the legal claim was justified, it would still be an invasion, because the Ukrainians don't want to be invaded or be subjgated to Russian rule. > No one even disputes Chinese sovereignty over Tibet That statement is false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_sovereignty_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_sovereignty_debate A great many people have disputed Chinese sovereignty over Tibet ever since the annexation of 1959, and they still dispute it and protest against Chinese rule. As for "spreading of systems": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet > and Hong Kong Legal sovereignty of a sort is not disputed there. But it does come tainted, as China took control on the condition of a "two systems" treaty about how to treat the people before the handover, and broke that treaty soon after. It is not clear the territorial handover would have occurred so easily if it was known in advance that China would dishonour its commitment to the people. As a result of breaking that treaty, it can be said that China has in fact violated some aspects of territorial legal sovereignty in Hong Kong, because those aspects were not China's legal right to take. But "legal claims" and "specific territories" have no bearing on the point of discussion in this thread, which is whether China has "zero" ambition to spread its political and social systems Tibet and Hong Kong are examples where it has spread its recent political and social systems to large numbers more people than before, removing cherished human rights and freedoms from them against their will. It says it wants to do it in Taiwan. So "zero" ambition to spread its systems is nonsense. I think your argument is that other countries don't need to worry about China spreading its systems further. That may or may not be justified, it's hard to tell. The South China Sea activities could have been collaborative projects with other countries in the region, but they are not, and that understandably makes those countries wary. China does not have a recent history of being particularly trustworthy (Hong Kong broke that), or sane (the "diplomacy" around Taiwan is bonkers), and talk of its ambitions being limited will be taken by some as merely a way to gain their cooperation until it's sufficiently powerful to change its mind. In any case, the discussion was about people and ethics, and the spread of political and social systems which take away rights and freedoms, and where there's an ethical obligation towards those people. I think there's a good case for countries, legal claims, and historical control, being irrelevant to that.

djohnston 4y ago

More people died during Mao's Great Leap Forward than all US wars combined since 1776, it's not even close.