41 ms·

As I said earlier, I never claimed that China has no problems, and I welcome genuine efforts to improve the human rights situation in China. But current efforts

As I said earlier, I never claimed that China has no problems, and I welcome genuine efforts to improve the human rights situation in China. But current efforts are simply not genuine and are merely geopolitical attacks disguised as human rights concerns. To make a comparison: the US also has many grave human rights abuses, including jailing people for saying "too interesting" things. But the US is not painted as some human rights abuse hellhole. It's clear that in the minds of many, human rights abuses in western countries can be bad but are at least redeemable or even incidental, while Chinese sins are inherent, systematic and unforgivable. And again: here you hold political rights as the highest goal. I dispute this notion. This "one might be singing a different tune" can be reflected right back at you: if you've experienced how it is like to live in a country that has had 150 years of war and poverty, where eating your next meal is not guaranteed, with western "democratic" countries looting your treasures (and still having them on display in foreign museums today) back then when your country was itself dabbling in introducing democracy and republicanism, then maybe you would value safety and economic prosperity way more than you do now. Said differently: when you are poor, you are not free, period. The ability to vote has no value on an empty stomach with thugs roaming the streets. The Chinese government has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, which is also a big human rights improvement. That does not excuse bad things, but it's worth putting things in perspective, something which many refuse to do because few are willing to hold an honest conversation about China. > By the way, a decade ago, Russian president Dmitri Medvedev said that Russia had “democracy with Russian attributes,” and that Russia had to be understood on its own terms. Of course, it was just a convenient fig leaf for the erosion of freedoms and consolidation of power happening behind the scenes. We can all see where Russia is today. Whatever problems you have with Russia has got nothing to do with China. Saying that "X has problem A, so Y must also have problem A" is a fallacy. Correlation is not causation. > I am glad Chinese people are still able to affect policy, but I wonder how long that will last. The ability to affect policy has increased over years, not decreased. In the past 15 years, government has improved systems to consult citizen. This notion of yours have been around for at least 10 years. But when you ask Chinese how many of them would rather live in 25-30 years ago, you will not find many. > If there is a war with Taiwan, will the government tolerate dissent? You got this entirely backwards. Many people in China support reunification with Taiwan. If Xi Jingping announces today that he accepts Taiwanese independence, then he'll be overthrown tomorrow and replaced with another government that supports reunification. Also, dropping this here: https://asiatimes.com/2022/11/harvard-guru-gives-biden-a-d-for-china-policy/ https://asiatimes.com/2022/11/harvard-guru-gives-biden-a-d-f... Dr. William Overholt, Harvard professor: "we are creating the problem that we think we’re trying to deter." In other words, all this talk about China invading Taiwan, and taking actions to "deter" China from invading Taiwan, incentivizes China to invade — because people fundamentally misread China's relationship with Taiwan. But the US government knows this and is deliberately stirring things up, breaking decades of diplomatic agreements, in order to goad China into shooting first so that the US can have a war with China while claiming moral superiority.

archagon 4y ago
> You got this entirely backwards. I did not: I am fully aware of this fact. However, while the majority of people in China may support a war with Taiwan, many will not. What will happen to those that oppose it? Will they be allowed to protest in the streets, or will they be brutally repressed? I know where I'd put my money. As to everything else, China should be commended for bringing so many people out of poverty. But authoritarian regimes are not sustainable. Give too much power to one man, and he almost invariably gets it in his head that he is the state, and starts repressing, pogromming, and dismantling any person or institution that gets in his way. (Observe that Xi has already eliminated presidential term limits.) I was born in Russia. The Soviet Union brought many millions out of poverty, including some of my direct ancestors. Was it all worth it in the end, though? I'm not so sure. The sins of the Soviet government ruined millions of lives and lead the country to where it is today: a crippled, fascistic, frothing-at-the-mouth oligarchy. Perhaps that's what's in store for China in the future. I really hope it manages to avoid this fate, but I'm not optimistic.
- FooBarWidget 4y ago
  Here you are projecting Russia and Soviet Union onto China again. Yet where is your evidence that the projection is remotely fitting? I cited a source: prominent statesman Kishore Mahbubani who testifies that the Soviet Union is not at all comparable to China. With your point wrt Taiwan you seem to be saying that if anti-war protests are suppressed then that is evidence that the country is a dictatorship. But the problem is that many countries — even western ones — suppresses dissent once they enter a war. Heck Germany is not even officially at war but anyone voicing public support for Russia can be legally reprimanded. You also seem to ignore the aspect of whether people can actually enact policy changes. People protesting against the Middle Eastern wars didn't prevent them. What use is the ability to protest when they don't change anything? I really don't know why everybody obsesses about Xi's term limits as if that's some sinister sign. Observe that Xi has been around for about as long as Merkel and Kohl. More generally, all this talk about "authoritarian regimes" is projecting something into China which does not fit. Observe the fact that the late Qing dynasty and the Republic of China were extremely weak, and look where that got us: poor, exploited by foreign democratic powers. When you look at the past 2000 years of Chinese history then you see that prosperous times come when central government is strong. Conversely, when central government is weak, the people suffer. Whatever problems you have with Russia and Soviet Union should not be projected onto China. Whatever problems the west had with strong governments should not automatically mean that China's biggest problems are the same. We've had more problems with not having enough state power than too much state power.

archagon 4y ago

> You got this entirely backwards. I did not: I am fully aware of this fact. However, while the majority of people in China may support a war with Taiwan, many will not. What will happen to those that oppose it? Will they be allowed to protest in the streets, or will they be brutally repressed? I know where I'd put my money. As to everything else, China should be commended for bringing so many people out of poverty. But authoritarian regimes are not sustainable. Give too much power to one man, and he almost invariably gets it in his head that he is the state, and starts repressing, pogromming, and dismantling any person or institution that gets in his way. (Observe that Xi has already eliminated presidential term limits.) I was born in Russia. The Soviet Union brought many millions out of poverty, including some of my direct ancestors. Was it all worth it in the end, though? I'm not so sure. The sins of the Soviet government ruined millions of lives and lead the country to where it is today: a crippled, fascistic, frothing-at-the-mouth oligarchy. Perhaps that's what's in store for China in the future. I really hope it manages to avoid this fate, but I'm not optimistic.

FooBarWidget 4y ago
Here you are projecting Russia and Soviet Union onto China again. Yet where is your evidence that the projection is remotely fitting? I cited a source: prominent statesman Kishore Mahbubani who testifies that the Soviet Union is not at all comparable to China. With your point wrt Taiwan you seem to be saying that if anti-war protests are suppressed then that is evidence that the country is a dictatorship. But the problem is that many countries — even western ones — suppresses dissent once they enter a war. Heck Germany is not even officially at war but anyone voicing public support for Russia can be legally reprimanded. You also seem to ignore the aspect of whether people can actually enact policy changes. People protesting against the Middle Eastern wars didn't prevent them. What use is the ability to protest when they don't change anything? I really don't know why everybody obsesses about Xi's term limits as if that's some sinister sign. Observe that Xi has been around for about as long as Merkel and Kohl. More generally, all this talk about "authoritarian regimes" is projecting something into China which does not fit. Observe the fact that the late Qing dynasty and the Republic of China were extremely weak, and look where that got us: poor, exploited by foreign democratic powers. When you look at the past 2000 years of Chinese history then you see that prosperous times come when central government is strong. Conversely, when central government is weak, the people suffer. Whatever problems you have with Russia and Soviet Union should not be projected onto China. Whatever problems the west had with strong governments should not automatically mean that China's biggest problems are the same. We've had more problems with not having enough state power than too much state power.