I really don't see any change that can realistically take roots there.
We have seen harsh sanctions fail to bring changes in a small poor country like NK where anyone looking South must be amazed at where they could have been.
In case of PRC, forget a kinetic physical action. Their economy is so interconnected with every other major economy that no one can afford even actual sanctions.
The most practical outcome seems to be a gradual emigration of all the HK citizens to the UK/other countries. I can imagine citizens forming networks where they would warn each other of an upcoming arrest so their friends/family would scurry out of the country.
I am hopeful that the sheer number of citizens in HK would perhaps lead to the city retaining some of its independence. We can't predict the future... who knows? What if Xi dies in the next 5 years and his successor isn't such a hardliner?
I think that is easy for us as outsiders to say or hope. Leaving everything behind and moving into a foreign land with a different culture is hard and not a lot of places are very welcoming.
Some professions like teacher are tough to find a similar role in other country. Different qualication, teaching language and teaching method they have to accomendate. It's a tough call to them.
For IT profession though, it's more flexible. Personally, I have worked in a multi-nation develop team, and the experience is good.
I guess that's exactly what Thatcher thought would happen when she handed over Hong Kong - That China will make progress towards liberalism in politics and economics. Instead of China becoming like the rest of the world, I am wary of the world becoming like China. Progress has been made in the past, but cannot take that for-granted.
Thatcher did not “hand over” anything - the lease of HK would expire in 1997, so the UK government had no legal basis to stick around unless the Chinese allowed them to. Unsurprisingly, a “restored” China, now nuclear, said no. Thatcher failed to persuade them otherwise, despite years of negotiations, and was effectively forced to swallow the handover.
> In case of PRC, forget a kinetic physical action. Their economy is so interconnected with every other major economy that no one can afford even actual sanctions.
Not suddenly, but every other major economy could probably afford a gradual distancing that ends up in more-or-less the same place.
US's bipartisan opposition might just be electioneering.
I think Germany's actions speak far more than any other country's. I would have assumed someone like Merkel to be tough here based on her standing on social issues and how she handled the migrant crisis. She, at least in the West had an image of a liberal leader with the right attitude on challenges of our times like climate change. But even Germany seems to be tiptoeing around while they look to sign a trade deal.
Steve Lookner runs Agenda Free TV on YouTube, and does a great job covering these types of breaking events. Currently wrapping up a live stream of the arrests and searches right now:
As an anecdote, someone I know is an immigrant from HK and has lived in the USA for many years, and this person is afraid of saying anything publicly against China out of fear. Fear for their family in China and fear for their personal safety even in the USA.
Similar to how Russia murders defectors [0], it’s not a good idea to be an expat and criticize China. It is an authoritarian regime, bottom line.
It is not weird in that countries enforce what they see as antiterrorism laws outside their borders (US is a prime example). The problem here is that China is targeting essentially anyone with a strong critical voice.
Kim Dotcom and Richard O'Dwyer were pretty ridiculous, but Julian Assange was trafficking in what he knew were stolen U.S. government secrets. I think there's a good first amendment defence for Assange, based on the public good and his role in whistleblowing, but I can understand why the UK would extradite someone allegedly knowingly handling stolen state secrets of an ally.
And invoked that authority: China has pressed charges against an American citizen who lives in America for conduct that took place in the United States.
>"Trudeau also rejected the idea of a prisoner swap for Meng Wanzhou — eldest daughter of Huawei’s billionaire founder Ren Zhengfei — saying an exchange would “demonstrate to China that they can just arrest Canadians and get what they want out of Canada.” "
She's alleged to have been an officer in a company that disobeyed American prohibitions on trade with Iran.
Calling it "bank fraud" is just a way of avoiding the question of what she did that was wrong. Who's arresting Anish Kapoor and his co-conspirators for committing fraud against Stuart Semple?
I haven't read the indictment, but isn't the allegation that she's an officer of a firm that exported restricted US-made HP telcom equipment under agreement with the US government not to share that equipment with Iran, and used a shell company in HK to transfer that equipment to Iran? My understanding is they snapped her up on the money side of the transaction because her hands were more directly there and that part is easier to trace. She needed to perform banking fraud in the US in order to make payment in the US for the US-made equipment. I believe the allegation is that she knowingly flat-out lied to HSBC about the nature of the HK shell company in order to get HSBC to complete the payment in the U.S. At least, that's my understanding. Am I missing something?
It's not like she was simply on vacation buying tourist kitsch in Tehran or selling Hwawei equipment to Iranian companies. I believe the allegation is that both the equipment export and the payment sides of the transactions touched US soil and violated US law.
This is irrelevant, whether such law should exists is a different matter.
USA arrests, say Islamic terrorists, for conduct that occurred outside USA. If you incite acts against USA you will get charged no matter where you are.
nothing to do with whataboutism. It has to do with where you are when you commit the crime. In China doing those things is a crime and it doesn't matter where or who are when you commit the crimes. The same with the USA and I guess most countries
The russian who ran an african "security" company, just before Erik Prince started his post-Blackwater african project, was arrested in thailand and sent to the US.
(This is probably a good place to remind any HK'ers with piles of the ready, who have not already invested in Vancouver, that Subic Bay is no longer a US naval base, but instead offers condos and a yacht harbour, all within cruising distance of HK.)
Before handover, HK police would come in pairs, with at least one english and one cantonese speaker. My (very pale and blonde) friend's hobby was to approach the cantonese speaking cop, who would gesticulate wildly pointing at their partner ... and ask a question in decent cantonese.
"an American citizen" who has not renounced his Hong Kong citizenship, so as far as that news is concerned, the fact that he also has American citizenship is irrelevant.
As an anecdote, i have a Tajik friend from Xinjiang who's seen friends kidnapped by Chinese authorities and never heard from again for daring to criticise the govt.
In such an environment, anecdotes may be among the most accurate information one can get.
I've never really seen such personally. People occasionally petition the central government due to grievances, but those people are heavily monitored, strongly discouraged, and later suffer negative repercussions (I know one such individual personally).
There are occasionally protests regarding local issues: housing demolition, environmental problems. They are not allowed to persist. I've never seen these in person.
I used to very occasionally see graffiti critical of the government, but I don't think I've see such in 5+ years. I figure the omnipresence of the security cameras have discouraged this.
I once received a robocall from the Falun Gong critiquing the government. I also occasionally see Falun Gong messages stamped on paper currency.
That's about it. I'm curious about the specifics of the case(s) about which you've heard.
I remember during Beijing Olympics, there were these "protest zones" that were created which theoretically should have allowed dissent in these areas. A pass based system was introduced to get access to these places. I remember people who applied for passes getting rounded up by the police.
In 1956, the CPC "encouraged citizens to express openly their opinions of the communist regime" and then "after this brief period of liberalization, ... those who were critical of the regime and its ideology ... were rounded up in waves by the hundred of thousands, publicly criticized, and condemned to prison camps for re-education through labor, or even execution."
It can't be lawful to initiate violence or excessively respond to violence initiated by others. Not many people rush to immigrate to Russia, China, North Korea and few other nice places. Take a hint.
In popular Western tellings of this piece of history, it's usually portrayed as a comic book evil conspiracy by the Chinese government. In actuality, it probably reflects an internal power struggle within the party at the time, where some politicians (among them Mao Zedong) were interested in a process of democratization, whereas others feared for their positions. The fact that a lot of the criticism that was made by the citizens was considerably more fundamental than even Mao had expected eventually eroded Mao's position to the point where he was forced to back down.
This obviously doesn't change the fact that the CPC at the time, like the CPC of today, is a dictatorial organization that should never be supported. But the quotes in your post very much play into the "evil conspiracy" angle, and I think it's important to tell history in a way that reflects the actual power dynamics instead of cloak-and-dagger tales.
>> In 1956, the CPC "encouraged citizens to express openly their opinions of the communist regime" and then "after this brief period of liberalization, ... those who were critical of the regime and its ideology ... were rounded up in waves by the hundred of thousands, publicly criticized, and condemned to prison camps for re-education through labor, or even execution."
> The fact that a lot of the criticism that was made by the citizens was considerably more fundamental than even Mao had expected eventually eroded Mao's position to the point where he was forced to back down.
IIRC, Mao expected the policy to bolster the regime and show how the people genuinely supported it. That didn't happen. Since the goal wasn't to actually let the people express alternative views, they cracked down hard.
I agree it probably wasn't "comic book evil conspiracy," but it's still a good illustration of how risky CCP offers of freedom of speech are.
I wonder if this is either very recent (since I haven't been there in over 6 months) or fairly old (before Xi took power). I could hear regular complaints about corruption, governance, and even government, but not the party itself (or particularly and most recently Xi). Granted I've mostly been in northern and central/western China rather than the south, but Guandong and Shenzhen didn't seem that different except for the Canton influence.
I have not (over 20 years) had an open political conversation about the party in China and I would never ask my friends there to entertain it even in the US. There is no point. Even in the US I would only discuss US politics, although they often seemed to be effectively related.
I will say that one of the formative descriptions of Chinese history was in the summer palace next to a statue of an emperor (Ming?) who had commited suicide upon being overthrown... he was by account terrible at ruling so I asked why there was a ;large statue. The answer was that by killing himself and not forcing the soldiers to fight and mandarins to destroy records he had maintained stability. This may be apocryphal, but the stories people tell about themselves are very illuminating.
I was in Shanghai in the winter, and I definitely heard some criticism of Xi in particular. I agree that people don't really like to talk about the party, but even that depends on context and setting.
There is definitely a cultural barrier there, around what "politics" even means and the role it should play. Most Chinese people are very jaded in general, and consider all politics, in China and abroad, to be nothing but an expression of entrenched power. As a result, democracy is often seen as an unachievable ideal that also doesn't exist in the west, particularly not in the USA.
In effect, this also means that Westerner's questions about Chinese politics can appear nonsensical or even naive to Chinese people. This is also why people are more likely to talk about corruption, as that is an evil that is considered possible to fight against.
Technically China does have free speech. The problem is that the rules don't really matter. If you say something that offends a someone with guanxi with the right people, you're screwed.
It's the same reason foreign businesses struggle so much in China. If you aren't friendly with the necessary bureaucrats and your Chinese competition is, you'll find yourself blockaded perpetually for the most bullshit reasons.
Why do parents go jump through hoops and are willing to break laws to get their kids into top colleges? People often say bribery is rampant in China. We have Super PACS and political donations and revolving doors.
I don't disagree with any of this at all; in fact I'd piggy back and go further: the Chinese Communist Party is increasingly a totalitarian regime. Whereas Vladimir Putin and the Russian oligarchs are mostly interested in preserving their power and wealth, and threatening/assaulting/murdering the people who get in the way, the Chinese Communist Party regime seems to have much broader goals. From the Falun Gong persecution to the Uighur concentration camps to the ultra-nationalist propaganda now taught in PRC schools to even the land grabs (and land "creation") the PLA Navy has engaged in, the ambitions of the Chinese Communist Party seem truly limitless in the way Nazi Germany's and the Soviet Union's did.
(This reads as a criticism and almost a "well, aktshually" kind of a post, but I truly don't intend it as such. If anything, it's a stronger warning to Chinese ex-pats: be very careful what you say because the regime's tentacles are numerous and reach far. Not that Chinese citizens don't already know that, though.)
There are definitely Han-supremacy fascist elements. Xi Jingpin's speeches have a clever interplay between sounding patriotic and whilst edging into aforementioned motifs.
It’s not a that discriminative in terms of reproductive rights if you consider the one child policy that applied for a long time to a lot of people (mostly of Han ethnicity).
While the policy doesn’t exist anymore, it’s not about the policy, but who has the right to decide whether you’re allowed to have children.
Chinese citizens should be very vocal against the CCP if they are brave enough. Telling people to be quiet because they are being silenced is a bit backward.
I want to be clear: I'd love to hear as many Chinese voices as possible criticizing this evil menace. But I also think prudence makes sense. I fully support: Chinese citizens criticizing the regime in private to non-Chinese; Chinese citizens telling the truth about the regime anonymously; or Chinese citizens speaking out but taking serious precautions for their personal and their families' health and safety. I also strongly support anyone who has the courage to visibly and publicly take a stand in a way where they are silenced by the regime, but only insofar as the stunt is recognizable publicly and the person does this with full awareness of the risks.
The fear is real - A lot of pro-democracy Hong Kong activists in US are harassed and threatened by PRC government agents, many of them Chinese students studying in US.
> Because there’s no chance they are just people with an opinion, right?
Not when your Education system is literal State propaganda and they deny access to the Internet due to the specific fear of subversive acts, also known as: personal research.
It's one thing to hold an opinion and argue from that POV in honest discourse, its quite another to be operating and rewarded for your loyalty to the State and be monitored and possibly dissapeared if you deviate from this path. This is the same type of Human Conditioning seen during the Soviet Union, which I think can be universally understood to be a negative thing.
Many people in Hong Kong feel as though they've been forgotten by the International Community, the Umbrella Revolution/Yellow Movement was trying to oppose this since 2014, and it mainly went unnoticed other than some sound bites about violent protests, and not much else was understood beyond that.
When what should have been the real focus was the ever increasing Hegemony that was being built by the CCP that could essentially become so seemingly 'indispensable' to those addicted to its cheap labour/manufacturing that it could commit literal Crimes Against Humanity out in the open, lie and cover up International Pandemics that have cost untold Lives and Suffering several times (SARS as well as COVID), and still make People question if it's 'worth' decoupling from China.
That was my biggest fear all along, as I knew Hong Kong (the city) would eventually be returned to China. We stand at a critcal point as a Species on how we Live on Earth and I really want to maintain faith that Humanity can come to the most reasonable albeit difficult conclusion that this cannot continue, but its statements and sentiment like that that make me wonder just how detached people have become to this cancerous threat model. And if they can even muster the ability to be inconvenienced enough to actually see it for what it is instead of detaching into some perpetual self0induced distraction, often viewed from their Chinese made device.
If they are just people with an opinion, they can state that opinion, no problem. If they want to harass, threaten, and beat up those with a different opinion, well, you can't do that here. The next question is why they do such things. Because they're so enraged because someone criticizes China? Because they don't know the rules here, and don't bother to learn? Or because they actually are agents? The last seems the most likely. (You don't see, say, French students in the US brawling with French expats who criticizes France.)
lol There lots of messages on Chinese social media criticize CPC eg. Weibo and Toutiao. Unless it is something really absurd no one will come after you
The thing is one does not know if they'll come or not. That is not the point. There is a general fear amongst the people that they'll be targeted for speaking out. Effectively blocking freedom of speech.
That's a false statement. There is general understanding one will only be questioned if the misinformation has caused a significant financial or social impact.
Well, if what you wish to accomplish has to rely on misinformation then China is the wrong place for you. People will come after you, you may end up need CPC's protection
'pro-democracy' people are strongly associated with misinformation in China. That's why they have very few support and never accomplish anything all these years.
one of their lies is the crash of Three Gorges Dam, the 'pro-democracy' media repetitively report this every year..millions dead..blah blah. But it never happened, the dam is solid in good shape. the 'pro-democracy' movement is a complete failure in China and will continue to fail if they continue to behave like losers
Chinese culture remains very authoritarian in a lot of ways. You can see attempts to get out of this, but it's hard.
I know people who emigrated from Taiwan before marital law was finally lifted and they were also terrified, even in the US, of criticizing Chiang Kai-Shek. I was told that there were minders on the streets in Taiwan and you might just disappear if they heard you complaining.
I want to make it clear that I am not an apologist for China, but when we levy criticism and express our fears, it needs to be precise, sharp, accurate. They should not be attempts to fearmonger. This comment does NOT have the purpose to approve or disapprove of Chinese conduct on the international stage.
The only thing I want to do is point out that Russia has a nearly undeniable record of assassinating dissenters such as Alexander Litvinenko and Sergei/Yulia Skripal in the United Kingdom. China does not yet share this record with Russia, so I feel that your statement coaxes people to interpret China as a murderer on the same level as Russia ("Similar to how Russia murders defectors, it's not a good idea to be an expat and criticize China"). This is an unfair equivalency and I want to point it out.
Look up Anna Politkovskaya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Anna_Politkov...): She was a known critic of Putin and shot/murdered mysteriously. You can search on Google for Russian critics outside of Russia being killed, but as far as I publicly discern, this is not true for Chinese critics. I'm not saying that people haven't been killed for criticizing China overseas, but I will say that publicly you and I do not know of people who have been killed, unlike the obvious case for Russia. My strongest plausible interpretation is that you are saying that it could be the next step for China, and I would agree that it is a possibility.
In fact, if we really want to be exhaustive about overseas assassination of critics, there is Henry Liu who was assassinated in California for criticizing Taiwanese leader Chiang Kai-shek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liu#Confession_of_Chen_C...). If I want to start being concerned about China murdering people, it's not a massive leap of the imagination to believe that they are capable of doing it, but so far, many similar nation-states have done more than China in this regard, such as Taiwan. However, obviously I understand that Taiwan is a fairly different place now compared to 1984 when Henry was assassinated.
In order to be charitable to your comment, I can ask, "Can you explain more about what you mean?" We can argue that China might be murdering critics, but that would be in the case of stuff that happens within its borders, not outside of it. We can also arguably say that China is imposing measures on critics overseas such as economic punishments, but they do not appear to be murdering people. Therefore, I do not think your anecdote about Hong Kong immigrants being killed in the USA adds value to the discussion because it is unsubstantiated to believe that it will happen. I would say that it's believable that HK immigrants could feel threatened or be afraid of retaliation from China through other means, such as online harassment or attacks from the 50 Cent Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party)
Having said all that, I do not want to wait until it reaches the point where China can shamelessly kill people in cities across the globe. My reply to the parent comment is more to point out that our criticisms need to be healthy and balanced, lest the discussion devolves into massive leaps of unsubstantiated thought.
? The US has never invaded a country for the stated purpose of 'Democracy'. Moving an occupied nation 'on the path of liberalisation and democracy' has always been a 'side goal' but obviously not achievable in most contexts. Like Kuwait. But it obviously was in Korea, Japan, most of Eastern Europe.
And the OP is cynical, it takes a lot for the US to mount a proper. Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, and post 9/11 Iraq part 2 + policing actions in Afghanistan are relatively big deals.
For the most part, there's no reason for the US and China to 'go to war'. What would they go to war over? The sheer physicality doesn't provide the opportunity.
Except for Taiwan - which China will go to great lengths to nab, and the US/West may or may not go to great lengths to defend. Even then I don't see war.
China will is not going to otherwise mount a military invasion of anything, it would be too costly. Their version of 'invasion' is called the 'Belt and Road' and it's ensuing corruption.
We have never invaded any countries for purely human-rights oriented reasons. There is always a larger element of preservation of power structures and capture of wealth.
But both of those reasons would also align with an intervention in China. The true answer to why we haven't intervened is both mundane and terrifying: China has nuclear weapons.
Even without the nukes, there is no practical way for the U.S. to project enough force to China to compel it to do anything. The Chinese people would not likely thank us for doing so if we tried. Not only that, it would be grossly disproportionate considering there are hundreds of millions of people in dozens of countries living under authoritarian rule elsewhere. All those states combined would probably make a softer target than China. So as long as we are planning to cure the world's ills with our guns let's start in Eritrea or something.
You'd think? The US is the only nation that is in a position to do anything about it. While sanctions won't compel the CCP, it could hurt them enough to prevent further cementing their hegemony.
Economic force is a completely different matter. It's basically orthogonal to nukes. Tbh I doubt that would work either, and it would hurt the West tremendously. But it's at least something that is not totally absurd on its face.
> Just try US sanctions and pushing the EU, Australia, Japan, Canada not to conduct any business with China.
You dont to sanctions to countries that provide most of your goods without a viable alternative. Sanctionning Iran does not change your daily life. Sanctionning China would suddenly make a large impact as to what you can actually buy and at what price.
Taiwan can't compare with China in terms of production capabilities right now. And other countries in Asia don't produce the same goods as China either.
The way to do that is to simultaneously open up trade with anybody else. Literally offer a free trade agreement with anybody that also sanctions china.
What would happen if the US redeployed troops to Taiwan, and announced it was recognising it as an independent state?
Beijing would be forced into a very difficult position - attack US forces in Taiwan, leading to massive military escalation, or lose face by allowing the US and Taiwan to call Beijing’s bluff
The US and Hussein's Iraq were not military adversaries until Iraq invaded Kuwait.
China absolutely is a geopolitical rival with militaristic and global hegemonic ambitions, and they have already committed to actions that we have gone to war over in the past. And they are on the cusp of a handful of actions that would have triggered a world war if they were done in the past. But nothing will happen to China for the same reason that nothing happened to Russia during the cold war. Because they have nukes.
Why isn't the Middle East on fire with protest over Xinjiang, given the response to eg Abu Ghraib. It's a similar reason: 1) they know China doesn't care and will disregard their protests or moral condemnations; 2) most countries are terrified of China, in multiple regards; 3) in much of the world, people only respond to events when they're told to - allowed to - by authorities (to protest against China in the Middle East for example, it must be sanctioned by the government or similar controlling power, and no government in the Middle East dares). What about the West, surely Germany or France can stand up to China, right? That's covered by #2, they're afraid of what China will do to them economically, so they limit their criticisms and actions toward China. Suddenly no more BMWs or Mercedes for sale in China. Accordingly mostly what you get is some furious hand waving and stern finger pointing by the UN or EU. As with SARS-CoV-2, in which absolutely nothing will happen to China as a result of what they did.
The US is the only entity that can stand toe to toe with China, as China can splinter any UN or EU response. Ultimately to get some other countries on board, they have to believe the US has their back full-stop. Such that when China starts throwing an inevitable response tantrum, the US will be there to lend unconditional, unflinching support. Who trusts the Trump government's erratic behavior enough to believe that at this point? You have to bet your nation's economic well-being on believing that his administration will have your back if you join the restrain-China coalition. Most countries will naturally avoid taking that risk and will attempt to hedge or dodge the matter. The West will only be able to mount a serious long-term plan once Trump is gone. The powermongers in DC love this style of great power bipolar struggle, a return to the cold war, a very clearly defined giant enemy to focus on; but they can't effectively do anything until Trump is gone, there's too much chaos in the system.
It'll look like this: US + EU + Japan + Britain + South Korea + Canada + Australia + New Zealand + South Korea (along with a few others) working in closer unison, running a program. It's the only approach that can work, China is too big for anything else at this point. China does a thing, the group responds. Huawei is a haphazard trial run; the team is going to have to get into fighting shape, because China isn't messing around, they want the global hegemony crown and total dominance over Asia.
Countries that didn’t have nuclear weapons and ICBMs
It is like asking why the US never invaded the Soviet Union. There was a window in the second half of the 1940s it might have been achievable without global thermonuclear war, albeit a war-weary world that had just endured the biggest war in human history didn’t have the appetite for that
Countries with nukes and 2M+ man armies? Besides, too much is at stake by our corporate overlords to put military action or sanctions on the table. Sadly, Hong Kongers need to steel themselves for some tough struggle sessions.
Airplanes are so expensive and non survivable these days that IMO the next war will be a massive air battle with whoever loses unable to replenish and therefore forced to surrender or be picked apart from the air or escalate. America currently has 10x the aircraft China has and the logistics to back them up (China is catching up). A 2m man army will likely be irrelevant except for fighting regionally, if their enemy has air superiority they will not be very effective.
Looking from a defense perspective. Won't an anti aircraft system be effective here? It is cheaper to build an anti aircraft system that can be deployed everywhere vs the aircraft itself.
Yes this is one line of thinking. However integrated air defence systems (IADS) have not shown themselves to be effective so far.
We've only really seen Russian systems in action and they've mostly failed, however it's very easy to argue this is due to poor training. One notable (alleged) engagement in Syria involved a Russian operated s400 battery (the latest and greatest) attempting to shoot down some of the 70+ tomahawks trump launched. Whilst some didn't make it to their targets there's no evidence the s400 hit them rather than them operationally failing. It's unlikely anyone would be better trained than the Russian military itself so if this indeed did happen it is damning for currently fielded IADS's.
Another reason for the apparent ineffectiveness of IADS's could be the west's proficiency at dealing with them:
Jets like the EA-18 growler are designed purely to entice systems to reveal their position (switching on their radar) so another jet can launch an anti-radiation air to ground missile (AGM) at it.
It's very likely the B2, f35 and f22 can't even be targeted by any IADS due to their low radar cross section.
Stand off weapons give the ability to destroy targets without being inside the range of any IADS. These could be used to strike important targets before the IADS is down or to pick the IADS apart itself (if you know where its assets are).
Given all this information I still can't say an anti aircraft system wouldn't be effective.. but I think the fact China is investing heavily into its air force implies that they have the same concerns about IADS effectiveness that I do.
Thank you for the reply. I found it interesting. I was under the impression that anti aircraft missile is very advanced that it basically can just tail any aircraft there is, but it's not that simple.
Why are we empowering this regime? Shouldn't we force companies like Apple to make a statement of why they manufacture their goods in China?
Apple is happy make a statement about BLM - it is cheap, doesn't cost them anything. But when it comes to things that actually harm profits and challenge shareholder responsibilities, they stay mum. We need to force Apple (and other giant corporations) to speak up about atrocities in HK and what their stance is. Before you downvote me, please, I plead you to respond about your thoughts - is there a reason why we shouldn't? Why is there no noise about this? No one seems to be protesting at Apple HQ.
Imagine:
WWDC 2021 - Opens with strong statements about how Apple supports democracy and open culture, how they appreciate people's voices and ability to think with liberty, how they inspire great people when government is of the people, by the people and for the people.
Alas - democracy will slowly erode away, chip away at a pace slow enough for normal humans like me and you to not be bothered, life goes on. One small step after another. Until you look back at the erosion and its a massive cliff.
> Why throw a specific company under the bus like that.
I am sorry to throw a 1.9 trillion dollar company under the bus.
Yes, I own many made in China products. In fact, it is hard to find anything in my room that's not made in China, including books and bunch of things that I wouldn't even know. Probably the bulb's phosphor coating is manufactured in China and so are the chemicals in my stomach acid tablets.
"Why throw a specific company under the bus like that" - probably calling out Apple specifically since they are the (or one of the) richest, most profitable companies in the world that still manufactures most of their products in China. They are a company that claim to have strong ethical values, as the OP mentioned in relation to the BLM movement, but they continue to do business with China, an undemocratic country with horrific human rights history. If any significant company were able to make a stand and remove any reliance on China, it would be Apple.
I share your sentiment on this. Among all the big tech, Apple is the only one which has a significant foothold in China and can possibly have an impact. But they have failed to live upto the ideals they speak about when it comes to earning easy money. BLM is easy to speak about and acts as good marketing for them.
At least at one point Google stood up for its ideals and quit Search in PRC, which I highly respect. With the criticism Google gets(some rightly so) and the stuff Apple gets away with, I wonder if they look to Apple and see the easy money they left on the table.
> BLM is easy to speak about and acts as good marketing for them.
Considering a good chunk of the US population (15-30%?) is vocally "anti-BLM" - it is somewhat ballsy for a high-profile company to wear pro-BLM in their corporate messaging - I'm sure we've all seen people on Facebook vow to boycott Apple or other "liberal" organizations.
Apple isn't running for election. Apple doesn't answer to the US population--it answers to its shareholders.
With that in mind, taking a clear moral stance against China's attack on democracy/human rights is far riskier than BLM branding, especially when you consider who is actually paying for Apple products.
> Considering a good chunk of the US population (15-30%?) is vocally "anti-BLM" - it is somewhat ballsy for a high-profile company to wear pro-BLM in their corporate messaging - I'm sure we've all seen people on Facebook vow to boycott Apple or other "liberal" organizations.
That doesn't really matter. Voluntary boycotts have little effect, and there probably no enough people who are so "anti-BLM" that they'd actually follow through on a boycott for Apple to notice.
The real reason they don't matter is because they already largely weren't a significant portion of their demographics. Stating my intention to boycott some very expensive high fashion brand when I haven't bought any article of clothing for a thousand dollars doesn't mean anything.
These boycotts have limited impact, or rather, their impact can be explained away by blaming other factors (see Blizzard, Disney, etc). This makes it a lot easier for companies to engage in this political marketing (lgbtq+/blm/etc). The reason they’re afraid to voice support for democracy in Hong Kong or human rights in a China, is not because they fear the Chinese people will individually boycott them, but rather that the CCP will block their access to the entire market.
I’ve always wondered if, hypothetically, someone as huge in China as Apple takes a stance and publicly criticizes the CCP, and the CCP do completely block access to the market, how does CCP explain to their people they suddenly won’t be able to get Apple products anymore? Would that actually happen? What are China’s options? Can they seize factories, take over, and keep shipping like nothing’s wrong? Do they let Apple stay but make it hurt financially?
When you have total control of the media(social/traditional), you can spread your narrative easily. I would assume it would look something like, "Look at the company aiding secessionists in HK and helping them". There is no way this narrative gets countered there.
I don't think they will seize factories, as it just means every foreign company would look to exit. They will probably simply not allow them to sell their products in mainland and not give them any concessions.
That is most probably Apple doing diversification to avoid SPoF and taking advantages of tax breaks. They will never stand up for these things because they don't just manufacture, they sell a lot of devices there.
I support this if that is the intention, I was just speculating that the reason is just the points I mentioned and not Apple looking to calling it quits over some ideals.
That’s a good point. If we assume the best of Tim Cook, he’d still be savvy enough not to announce “China sucks we’re moving to India” but rather the SPoF argument, and then one day, well we need to reduce capacity and for reasons XYZ (which are aha nothing to do with the CCP) we’re going to focus on India.
That article actually states "Apple manufacturing partners" are opening factories in India. In other words, Apple are continuing to work with Chinese companies, and the Chinese companies are extending their reach outside of China. In no way is that Apple moving away from China.
And Apple is simply hedging their bets like any responsible company would be doing in this situation. So some manufacturing capability will be moving to India et al but obviously not all and not in the short term.
Are you going to stick to that when one of your Nimitz class carriers is sitting on the bottom of the Pacific and China and Russia have occupying forces on mainland USA?
> But when it comes to things that actually harm profits and challenge shareholder responsibilities, they stay mum.
Cynical but this is why- it would cost them a lot, at least today.
The Chinese government has zero reservations about sandbagging US corporations that publicly critique it or otherwise don't fall in line - just ask Google, Facebook, or the Houston Rockets.
You wont hear a peep out of Apple until they're 100% sure they can break ties and afford any assets seized, have no personnel abroad, etc.
Consider that Apple's supply chain is centered around the PRC - if Apple PR ever says the /wrong/ then then Foxconn would immediately find their factories closed and Apple wouldn't have their latest iPhone available come October - and Christmas.
I'm surprised it took until very recently for Apple to start spinning-up alternative supply arrangements and manufacturing in other countries - I guess they expected that the PRC would improve their human-rights situation by now.
One small possibility for hope: Foxconn is a Taiwanese company with factories around China but that has also no expanded to other countries. Apple can (and is slowly) work with Foxconn to progressively move bits of its supply chain out of the PRC. It's already producing some iPhone in India and some other devices in the USA. Given the current political climate, they really ought to diversify out of China as a sound business decision, even if they have no plans to take a stance.
> if Apple PR ever says the /wrong/ then then Foxconn would immediately find their factories closed and Apple wouldn't have their latest iPhone available come October - and Christmas.
Is that something China could realistically do without irreparably harming themselves in the process though? It’s not just Apple’s supply chain that goes through China, it’s everybody’s. And once China demonstrates they are willing to do that, everybody is going to see a China-based supply chain as a gigantic business risk and look elsewhere. Apple can weather that kind of setback, but it would be an existential threat for most businesses and they would need to be proactive. Apple would go elsewhere and lay down the infrastructure, then everybody else would follow in their footsteps.
As far as I can see, China can throw their weight around to a certain extent but their hands are tied when it comes to stronger action because "Apple’s PR saying the wrong thing" is nowhere near as harmful to them as companies diversifying their supply chains en masse.
Certainly, but considering how much of their business is hardware manufactured in China, it would destroy basically every corporate performance metric their executive team has for some time and this is ultimately how their bread is buttered.
Hardware manufacturing at that scale and sophistication is an intricate dance of suppliers, technology integration, and management, one that Apple has mastered- losing this and having to replace it overnight would be a huge setback, with basically no iPhones or Macs available for months or longer, closing of Apple Stores, and suspension of new technology development.
> it would destroy basically every corporate performance metric their executive team has for some time and this is ultimately how their bread is buttered.
Interesting how Microsoft's President called for a Hippocratic oath for engineers, while dodging the real problem - decisions which have real impact are made by executives keen on maximizing bonuses.
And what does Apple get in return? Some lip service praise from media? Would US government compensate Apple with tax break? What about the jobs that might be lost?
Think of Google then. Google's exit from China achieves one thing, that is becoming irrelevant to the Chinese people, while giving its competitor a free run of the world biggest internet market.
Control through market is a trick that US has been playing since WWII. It is proven to be effective.
Apple last quarter generated 16% of their revenue in China.
They've also cooperated with the HK/Chinese governments to pull police tracking apps[1] and VPN apps[2] from the App Store.
I'd say even if they relocate 100% of their manufacturing from China, they'd still stay silent because 10B of revenue per quarter is very significant to their top line.
If you had to quantify how much Apple supporting BLM has helped decrease racism, it's probably very close to zero. Voicing their support for Hong Kong would accomplish even less. Why would they jeopardize potential billions of dollars to do so?
I genuinely want to know what these people are thinking. Similar comments also got downvoted with no explanation. Even if you're Kantian rather than utilitarian, you should understand that companies not wanting to spend billions of dollars on a lost cause.
Amazing if Apple actually did that it will be huge. The CCP is going rogue and hostile towards worlds peace. We all must come together to boycott them. One more company that should take a stand and remove China from its supply chain is Amazon. They have let their store run amock with low grade goods
> The CCP is going rogue and hostile towards worlds peace. We all must come together to boycott them. One more company that should take a stand and remove China from its supply chain is Amazon. They have let their store run amock with low grade goods
The CCP was always against World Peace, just look at their actions, be it in Tienanmen or against the 'others' (non-Han) in Tibet or Xianjing prior to Hong Kong. You think they would hesitate to do any of that, or worse, in Africa as its gotten in deeper over the years?
I've been convinced that we have to move away from Chinese manufacturing reliance for many reasons and have been advocating for this for nearly a decade now, which is what made me end up having to source many things I'd normally buy new on the second hand market that are made in Japan/US/EU or simply often simply do without unless absolutely unavoidable (non obsolete laptops/PC) and even then I'd buy used or repaired broken devices.
But I think it has only now become apparent to the masses that the CCP are utterly insane and suicidal. They lie about everything and nothing they say can be trusted.
I hope we use COVID as the proverbial 'straw that broke the camels back' in what we'd tolerate for mass produced, cheaply made, disposable trinkets from sweatshops using slave labour and move towards a post ;Made in China' World. People like to mock N. Korea, but I fear Xi and the CCP is worse because of how insidious and pervasive they have wielded its influence on the World. The US is guilty of this, too, but China is a violent Autocracy with a long history of erasing People and events from it's History to suit its own end: a perverse form of Powerful State-sponsored Corporatism that seems extremely dystopically Cyberpunk.
Boycotting their goods and returning manufacturing locally is the most effective, and ideally non-violent approach as we isolate and impose an embargo on the CCP until China reforms. The UK did a 180 on the Huawei 5G that essentially did what most thought was impossible and undid and pivoted the Supply Chain with an incredibly short turn-around on the matter proving it can be done if there is a resolve to do so.
With all of the massive unemployment in the US (but all over the World really) and what what will certainly be a soon to be seen retail real estate Apocalypse you'd think any sensible person (oxymoron?) running for office would put 2 and 2 together and see the obvious platform and run on that campaign and win in a landslide.
Companies like Apple are just greedy, for the cheap labor, the market shares as well as no need to pay for the environment costs. however, it's short sighted, they really need to realize that CCP is always hunger for power. Sooner or later, they can use their money and market to first influence, then eventually own or destroy if they don't think they have full control of you.
For the whole world, people need to wake up too. just do some research on the Chinese textbooks from elementary school to college, and see what kind of mindsets they are instilling to their population, you will realize this is a monster.
If it is immoral for Apple to do business in China, then why is it moral for Mr. Lai or anyone in Hong Kong to do business in China? This smacks as a pretty partisan double standard, and I have to wonder what you have against Apple that you would single them out in this way.
Hong Kong and people like Mr. Lai has always done business in China and there's nothing reprehensible about that, nor is it reprehensible for any other business to legally carry on it's business in the same way. This is about individual freedom, free speech and political liberties, of which trade is one and criticising others for exercising their freedoms is the antithesis of that. Mr Lai made his fortune exercising those freedoms and I very much doubt he would say doing so now is in any way wrong. The way to fight this is by arguing and fighting for freedoms, not against them.
> If it is immoral for Apple to do business in China, then why is it moral for Mr. Lai or anyone in Hong Kong to do business in China?
Why is it moral for Jimmy Lai – who was born there, grew up there, and lives there – to do business there? Are his only moral choices to be unemployed or emigrate? He needs to be economically active somewhere and that’s his home.
You don’t have to have a "partisan double standard" or bias against Apple to see the clear difference between a corporation expanding to a foreign territory and a local working in his home country.
If it's moral for those workers in China to take employment working on Apple products, I don't see why it's immoral for Apple to make the deals that create that employment. So no, I don't really see a difference.
Business that especially benefits the Chinese government in particular, or that supports their oppressive activities, sure I can see that. I think Google took a principled moral stance in refusing to provide search services in China when it was clear those services would have to enable surveillance. I don't think they did anything wrong having their Pixel phones manufactured in China.
For context my wife in mainland Chinese, though now a British citizen, we go there regularly and have family there. I spend money in China, and don't think there's anything wrong with myself, businesses, or 'corporations' doing so either whatever we think of the CCP. So this sort of selective virtue posturing really rubs me up the wrong way.
> If it's moral for those workers in China to take employment working on Apple products, I don't see why it's immoral for Apple to make the deals that create that employment. So no, I don't really see a difference.
One of these is an economic necessity and one is not. People generally don’t have a choice but to participate in their local economy. Apple has a choice to participate in the Chinese economy. That’s the difference.
> This smacks as a pretty partisan double standard
> I have to wonder what you have against Apple
> this sort of selective virtue posturing
Can you make your point without being insulting and accusatory? It’s possible for people to disagree about this without one side being a bad actor.
It’s not a matter of necessary or not, it’s a matter of freedom or not. Mr Lai clearly gets this. He said he fights for freedom because it’s those freedoms that enabled his success. Those arguing against people exercising those rights are anti-freedom.
Now trade boycotts and restrictions can be justified in some circumstances. I’m not a fundamentalist, but pushing the responsibility on individuals, and doing so in a blatantly asymmetrical and partisan way to push a clearly unrelated agenda (why Apple in particular, really?) is reprehensible and I make no apology for saying so.
I cannot sensibly speak to each of your points, and I am not an Apple apologist, but from my basic, and possibly misinformed understanding Apple is starting to move ex-China:
>Opens with strong statements about how Apple supports democracy and open culture, how they appreciate people's voices and ability to think with liberty, how they inspire great people when government is of the people, by the people and for the people.
Now imagine five million Chinese hearing they now have lost their job because Apple "appreciates their voice." (first result for "Apple created jobs in China," I did not verify the number) I'm sure their reaction will be to cry out for democracy.
Meanwhile, Apple will undoubtedly move their operations to one of the many democracies that also have a terrible human rights record.
We are not, companies are empowering. Because it all about $. That's all, no human rights can surpass this. Books, shareholders revenues, expectations and the money flow to their bank accounts. All that matters.
But it is really disappointing to see all the brands I'm using are feeding this regime. So disappointing.
Well hello? it's not like Apple setup their manufacturing in Hongkong or something. Apple and Taiwan businessman purposely setup factories in mainland China for its exploitable cheap work force and government subsidies of the supply chain.
For the mainland Chinese' perspective, it's just HK people's "privilege" being stripped, HK's special status are gone and just like another average Chinese city so what's the outcry?
Some big companies DO try to be intentional about moral issues like this. The HN post earlier today had a question for Microsoft President Brad Smith about China.
> "While China is also an important market for Microsoft, Smith explained that they had to step back from setting up a data center there because of the legal and security issues that it could create for their Chinese users. “You need to know what principles you hold fundamental”, he added."
Also worth noting that it is not always a simple black and white. Yes there are clear examples, but lots of Chinese companies do honest business and don't want to hurt anyone. And what is the dividing line for a potential boycott? Do companies all over the world have to meet US labor standards before you'll buy from them? Do their host governments need to meet a particular definition of liberalism? Can you come up with concrete definitions that don't exclude the US?
You may have all sorts of answers to those questions, and I hope you do your part in voting with your wallet along those moral lines. I point them out only to illustrate that they aren't EASY questions, and certainly aren't easy in the context of big movements like trade deals, when hundreds or thousands of local jobs are at stake.
The thought of living in a China-centric world during the twilight of my life on Earth (2050+) makes my hair stand on end. I do not want to be treated as a second class human because of the color of my skin or my ethnicity. I do not want to lose business and professional opportunities because I am not Han. I do not want to live in a world where freedom of speech and expression are long lost memories, where even the rich and powerful have to pay fealty to the emperor or face the ultimate consequence. I do not want to live in a world of ultranationalism and jingoistic ethnocentrism, of repressive regimes that eliminate rights and protections on a whim. I don’t know what the solution is, I do not want war, but that is looking more inevitable than ever at this point.
War is unlikely because of mutual destruction guaranteed by Nuclear weapons.
What's most likely is information erosion, brain washing, espionage and political upheaval caused by CCP actors. Be careful what you write on the internet. You'll see the full wrath of CCP cancel culture like you've never seen before in the year 2050. Also, keep an eye on whichever country you belong to and how its government is not influenced by CCP. It might be a little too late for Australia [1].
Interesting. China was just doing its own thing in the mid-1900's. Sure it was no paradise to live in, but they were pretty much irrelevant on the world stage. Then all these multinational corporations come along, pump steroids into the Chinese economy (and by extension, the CCP) while fattening their own pockets, and after a few decades, play dumb and whine about how China hasn't been playing fair. Am I wrong on any of this or am I going to get a bunch of anonymous downvotes?
Now some basement-dwelling armchair generals want to go to war with the consequences of our own making. If humanity ends in a cloud of fallout, it'll be hard to say we didn't deserve it.
Edit: if your last paragraph was relating to me I never advocated for it. Why is it you can’t say how you see things panning out without people thinking that you want it to be that way? I noticed it a lot on social media these days. For example I dislike Trump but predicted his election and was crucified for it. I was right.
I don't think we're going to go to war -- at least not in any conventional sense. But if I'm wrong, it would prove that we're little more than baboons who happen to be able to understand some advanced math.
The problem with whataboutism is that even if you can establish equivalence (you haven't) it doesn't refute the underlying statement.
Furthermore, in this case it may assume that I have some desire to defend the US's former middle eastern policy. It is not impossible to dislike both in varying degrees.
Although it is illogical, it is an effective way to derail the discussion. I admit that much.
As your comment points out, the current $BOOGEYMAN is probably not as strong as sold. My comment was intended to say that, with hindsight, not only have all the recent @BOOGEYMEN not been existential threats (for the US in particular, let alone "The West" in general), a recent one was even fabricated.
Rumsfeld on looting as a sign of freedom:
> "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime, ... I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures ... [who wouldn't] accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."
China was the dominant power in East Asia for the best part of 2 millennia. It expanded aggressively during periods when it was strong, absorbing many native cultures in the periphery, and had many neighbouring states paying tribute and aligning with its values (e.g. Confucianism). It was an Empire, but the difference (compared with European Empires) being it was not a naval power that established colonies across oceans.
Same thing happened during most other wars, older population calls upon the younger population to defend their rights and riches. No war is better than peace.
> Same thing happened during most other wars, older population calls upon the younger population to defend their rights and riches. No war is better than peace.
Seriously, the clearer we see that boycotts and economic isolation are far more favourable than preserving the Wealth of a Boomer generation the sooner this via War that mentality can fade from Human consciousness.
I'd sooner see all of the boomers have their wealth stripped and lost before even a proxy war take place with drones.
This isn't entirely generational conflict, I have worked with some amazing people who happened to be Boomer aged, but given how collectively calloused they've been to all other generations to support an unsustainable path I want to see a massive correction in their standard of living and quality of Life so they get a wake up call to the true costs what what they have imposed upon the World. More of a rigid confined mental state that has been upheld for so long that they cannot escape it without a real kick to the head. Most of Greta's followers of notoriety are all Boomer Age or older, but seldom actually do anything: Merkle being a prime example of this.
As a millennial, I have it very clear in my mind how Gen Z will likely be the first generation to totally abandon any filial/paternal loyalty left in decision making when they truly understand the gravity of not just the Political/Economic damage (which has always been transient) that they are gong to inherit the dire Environmental situation.
I hope we see a massive diaspora of Humans to rural under populated places as a result, and given my conversations with many who seem disillusioned with their prospects in both the East and West that seems to be already happening; many HKers are fleeing to Taiwan or the UK, and others have been in Canada for some time but they're also moving to Australia, and the US.
These are highly skilled, highly educated migrants with Western values that are being competed for. Taiwan is offering them a form of UBI for those that arrive from HK die to political reasons, and the UK is making lots of accommodations for BN(O) passport holders.
This is what disruption looks like, its never pretty and almost always pretty damn messy, but I'm glad we're here as the CCP has to be stopped.
I think that war is much more likely than a peaceful transition to a China-centric world.
I also don't think that war will be a "hot" conflict. China's economy would collapse if the developed world abandoned it.
What will continue is the "cold wars" being waged right now through the internet. Russia, China, and Iran are all actively trying to destabilize the US. All have had some success, with Russia seemingly having the most success (although the relevant intelligence briefings are still classified for now).
There's no reason for countries successfully waging digital wars (with no casualties or loss of business) to suddenly start firing missiles in a world of mutually-assured destruction.
This is the kind of comment that makes me know there's no hope for HN.
The color of your skin has bought you a lot. When you were a kid, my parents were making a dollar a day. When your parents were kids, my grandparents were facing famine. Now, finally, for the first time in all of modern history, a large group of non-white people has escaped crushing poverty. They're not rich by any means. You'd still be richer than 99.9% of your neighbors if you moved to China, and you'd still be generally worshipped for your skin color, but at the very fucking least Chinese people are no longer starving to death by the millions.
You look at this tiny measure of progress and hope, and you declare it repulsive. You think if you're no longer standing far on top of everybody else, if you sink to the 90th percentile of privilege from the 99th, you'll become a "second class human", and that possibility makes war "inevitable".
The main thing I have learned from a year of commenting on HN is that many very comfortable people here who think just like you, and it is deeply disappointing.
Before I answer that, you are aware that we casually started two wars last decade that directly killed 200,000 innocent civilians, right? And that we reliably do that every other decade?
There's no excuse for killing civilians in war but there's a definite difference between doing that and putting people in concentration camps because of their religion.
> if you sink to the 90th percentile of privilege from the 99th, you'll become a "second class human"
That isn't what the person you're responding to said at all. They were observing the discrimination against those who are not Han in China and extrapolating that it would apply to them as well in a China-centric world.
They don't want to be discriminated against. That's all that's being said. (Well also they're saying that they appreciate freedom of speech and some other stuff that China seems to be diametrically opposed to, but you didn't respond to that so I guess it's not relevant to my comment.)
The "discrimination" they fear is no longer automatically being worshipped the second they step foot in a non-Western country, for being the richest guy in every room. In other words, what they actually fear is dropping from 99th percentile to 90th, and they think that possibility is worth starting World War III over.
That attitude is typical, and precisely why people in China find the West so unconvincing.
Do you really think agitating for World War III was productive to start with? I pointed out rationally and straightforwardly where such extreme opinions come form.
I read the original comment as being against it but wondering if it's an inevitable outcome. That's a very reasonable thing to want to discuss - many of the respondents here (including myself) appear not to share the view that it's inevitable.
> I pointed out rationally and straightforwardly
You mean the part where you literally made things up about what the other party thought?
What he directly said is that he thinks the prospect of there being a single non-white country not being crushingly poor "makes his hair stand on end", supplanted with some typical yellow peril fearmongering. I simply completed his thought.
> he thinks the prospect of there being a single non-white country not being crushingly poor "makes his hair stand on end"
As I previously pointed out, that is absolutely not what was said. Please stop making things up.
Concern was expressed about the racism against those who are not Han which currently exists in China. The original commenter professed a fear of what that would look like for outsiders in a China-centric world.
You appear (IMO) to be trying to distract from the fact that there is racism within China today. (As there is, of course, in many other places to varying extents - including but certainly not limited to the US.)
> The original commenter professed a fear of what that would look like for outsiders in a China-centric world.
Yes, and for the third time now: my point is that the absolute worst-case scenario for the original commenter is still miles better than what 90% of the world (i.e. everybody non-white) faces today.
The worst-case scenario in OP's book is that China joins the ranks of first world countries, which then go from being 100% white to 90%. He'd still be rich, and he'd still be comfortable, but he'd have to share first world status with others. And for some reason, that's unacceptable.
Worst case, he might miss out on one business deal because it was struck in Mandarin, which is an absolutely tiny reflection of the loss of opportunity faced today by everybody who doesn't know English. And that in turn is tiny compared to the reality that 100 million people died of starvation in the 20th century. Famine, disease, and poverty are global moral catastrophes of unimaginable scale. And OP just thinks a country managing to stop them for its citizens gives him the creeps.
> my point is that the absolute worst-case scenario for the original commenter is still miles better
So we shouldn't worry about something bad because worse has happened before?
> The worst-case scenario in OP's book is that China joins the ranks of first world countries, which then go from being 100% white to 90%.
You're making things up again. OP described living in a China-centric world, not one of equals. (Also your population statistics are _way_ off. 100% to 90%? The population of China is comparable to every other western country combined.)
> Worst case, he might miss out on one business deal because it was struck in Mandarin
Worst case, he might be actively discriminated against and passed over because in spite of investing considerable time in mastering Mandarin he's not Han.
> OP described living in a China-centric world, not one of equals.
Yes, but there's no evidence to suggest this will be the case. The average yearly income in China is not even half what a minimum wage worker gets in the US! And yet OP thinks China will promptly take over the world. That's yellow peril at work.
Irony abounds. The OP doesn't even mention a particular race in the comment. Yet the responses assume he is white with all of the trappings of privilege. Not impossible to characterize this assumption as racist on multiple levels.
> In other words, what they actually fear is dropping from 99th percentile to 90th, and they think that possibility is worth starting World War III over.
Classic siege mentality. First assume OP is white and rich, then accuse the West hindering China from getting powerful while OP is focusing on human rights and equity. To be frank your argument is no better than common cliches from Wumao and Xiaofenhong.
>You look at this tiny measure of progress and hope, and you declare it repulsive. You think if you're no longer standing far on top of everybody else ... you'll become a "second class human"
> a large group of non-white people has escaped crushing poverty, but at the very fucking least Chinese people are no longer starving to death by the millions.
I'm pretty sure skin colour isn't related to poverty, maybe you can blame chairman Mao for that.
> this tiny measure of progress and hope
So you suggest all the bad things happened to Uyghurs and Han people can be justified with economic growth? That's just a lame argument used by the CCP all the time.
As a Chinese person, I do not understand your reply. You're saying he is against impoverished people in China obtaining wealth but nowhere do I see him say that. Instead, he's saying he is afraid of the same oppression China is forcing on Hong Kong being forced on the rest of the world.
All of these examples are pieces of entertainment being pulled because they offend Chinese sensibilities.
Here's the thing: pieces of entertainment are also pulled if they offend American sensibilities. In fact, American sensibilities have exclusively determined what is acceptable in big-budget entertainment for at least half a century. Crap like the Blitzchung affair just reflects this balance shifting to 99% America, 1% China.
Yes, China has the power to cancel one thing from time to time, but America constantly has the power to cancel everything. If a big-budget production isn't appealing to an American audience, it just doesn't get made, period. For example, when's the last time you saw a Chinese protagonist in a major film? Or even a single Chinese person who wasn't portrayed as a villain, a dope, or a sex toy?
In a world with equitable global development, influence would be proportional to population. America would have a 5% say, China 20%, Africa 20%, India 25%, and so on. So I'm not worried about the balance shifting towards that.
I think there's a lot of confusion between opposing the CCP and racism against Chinese. I'm Chinese as well.
I think we can fight for more Chinese roles in films, politicians, scientists, CEOs, more representation in all fields. However, I don't see how your argument about it being okay to "cancel" because China is just cancelling 1% and America is 99%.
I'd also not prefer to live in a CCP-centric world where Chinese people are not allowed to tell the truth without fear.[1][2]
We should call out Guantanamo Bay as well as the Xinjiang re-education camps, Liu Xiaobo, not allowing Hong Kong elections. It doesn't make either right because of the existence of the other. However, I have no fear of speaking publicly about Guantanamo Bay and then traveling to the US. But I have to make sure I remove all my private chat messages if I ever mentioned about the Xinjiang camps. That's the CCP-centric world that I see.
> However, I have no fear of speaking publicly about Guantanamo Bay and then traveling to the US.
I think you're too optimistic. If you'd made similar comments during the Red Scare, you would have ended up like Qian Xuesen, the Chinese-American who devoted the best years of his life to developing American technology, but who ended up fired and placed under house arrest for years for his ethnicity. This process of arbitrary arrest of Chinese people has never stopped -- and in recent years it has dramatically accelerated. Obviously, it doesn't make the HN front page. Nobody cares.
Before I joined HN I was quite naive, but now I understand that many Americans are anticipating a second Red Scare with glee, and some even long for World War III. Representation in films and politics and so on is a nice wish, but it will obviously be impossible under those conditions. As will many other things.
I see your point regarding Qian Xuesen and that whole thing was a tragedy for United States. Similar things can be said about the US treatment of Japanese Americans and internment camps.
Your point is exactly why we need to be afraid of any government's suppression of free speech. We need to support people like Jimmy Lai so the likes United States and the CCP cannot suppress the voice of good people. We need to be fearful of any government arresting anyone advocating for freedom. Regardless of your government, the goal is to support free speech and the freedom of the press.
I am an immigrant. Yes I am white, but my grandparents faced famine at the hands of Communism and my parents were poor, just like yours. If you go further back in my family history I'm sure you'd find generation after generation of serfs. If it wasn't for America I probably wouldn't be posting on HN. If it wasn't for America I probably wouldn't be as educated and as wealthy as I am. My comment was directed at the principles that the CCP seems to embody, and not Chinese people themselves. The fact remains that if China led a unipolar world during my upbringing, my rise from son of a simple farmer would likely not have been possible because of the color of my skin/ethnicity. That is the problem I have with the Chinese system.
I'm glad we agree that development and opportunity are good things.
The average per capita income in China is lower than countries like Costa Rica or Venezuela. It's less than half of what a minimum wage worker gets in the US. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people still die in China due to preventable diseases like tuberculosis and hepatitis. About half the children in the countryside are malnourished, to a degree that would not be conceivable for anybody in the US. This is the actual situation China is facing, and it's still dramatically better than many countries that were similarly poor decades ago.
In response to this, you and HN in general immediately react with fears of imminent Chinese world domination. Once again I ask you: why does the prospect of a few non-white people not starving to death make you so afraid? Why is this so alarming, so abnormal? I encourage you to spend at least a moment thinking about it.
You keep bringing up racism and devolving the conversation. The entire gist of your argument seems to be that universal principles don't matter so long as progress is made. That's a shortsighted and fairly moronic point of view. Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong were able to develop and raise millions out of poverty in concert with universal principles and democracy. China and the China model does not have a stranglehold on development. They don't own some sort of secret sauce that cannot be replicated. You don't have to trade in freedom of speech and expression and the rule of law for an HDTV and a high-rise apartment.
I would argue that a democratic China would be further along in its development than it currently is. A democratic China would have not have had its development retarded by a megalomaniacal madman whose decisions led to the deaths of dozens of millions of souls. Were those deaths justified in the pursuit of growth and development?
I don't believe the odds of China #1 are 100%, but...
>I do not want to lose business and professional opportunities because I am not Han.
I don't think this will be as big of a problem as you expect it to be. Do you have any western Han friends who do business in China? Being Han isn't going to stop others from trying to screw you over, even if you aren't Western.
If you're actually worried, then your main concern should be learning Mandarin.
I think only a few demographics will experience the racism that you fear.
Unlike the US, China hasn't been interested in exporting its form of government since the Cold War. If anything, they'd prefer if their rivals stayed more democratic and free, so it's easier to make money and spread propaganda there.
Also keep in mind that China is making way more enemies than friends these days, so there is no way the world is going to be China-centric to the extent that you're worried about.
See their reactions to the BLM protests and banning of TikTok in India and the US. Of course they'll tell their citizens that their government is the best and other countries should copy that.
And the answer is yes, his tweets really do threaten China's national security. People internally questioning the CCP delegitimizes the CPP and Xi. That threatens, not China, but the ruling party. They defined their continued rule as the national security of China.
As a Chinese, I think it is reasonable to arrest a leader who violated the national security law.
Think of a US media tycoon who went to China to meet with the Secretary of State, used the media to incite riots in his country, appeared on the streets of protest, and publicly called on China to intervene in the United States. What are the consequences of this?
Please read more media from a different standpoint and think about this event in another way.
Thanks for replying, if my comment can bring thinking, it will be enough.
Because of the Chinese culture of "national unity", intervention in Hong Kong is like intervention in China.
I don’t think the analogy of Guam is appropriate. As a strategic priority, Guam is occupied by many countries. Now as a US military base, residents have no right to vote.
Hong Kong belonged to China a long time ago. The British captured him through war in 1842 and returned it to China in 1997. Hong Kong currently retains its own administrative system and will fully integrate into China in the future.
I am not very familiar with the history of the United States, and I cannot offer a better analogy. If the Guam helps to understand the situation, I have no objection. After all, what I want to say is what Jimmy Lai did.
> Think of a US media tycoon who went to China to meet with the Secretary of State, used the media to incite riots in his country, appeared on the streets of protest, and publicly called on China to intervene in the United States. What are the consequences of this?
That would be a wonderful thing if my government were currently persecuting 1 million people solely based on their religious and cultural identity. The consequences would be carried by hope.
Every time we discuss China's issues, some people always raise Xinjiang. The evidence presented was nothing more than the testimony of a few people and photos of unknown time and place.
Chinese people who know technology can read these reports, and I can say that most of them will not believe them. Because the CCP has always promoted that 56 ethnic groups are one family. If these things happen, they will spread locally and cause riots. Note that media control has never completely prevented the spread of the incident, only weakened.
Because Xinjiang has suffered terrorist attacks, his security measures are higher than other provinces. For example, citizens have to show their ID cards to enter the supermarket, but this is the same for everyone.
About the skills training school, I once had doubts about what facility it is. After watching the BBC interview, I relieved my doubts, because even if they were looking for it with a magnifying glass, the scariest place was just the bathroom with the lights off. [1] If officials prevent them from viewing anything, they will put it on the show.
In summary, I do not believe that the CCP persecutes Uyghurs. I think the media played a big role in our differences of opinion. So I suggest watching more media with different standpoint. For example, I often watch English media, but Westerners rarely read Chinese media. Fortunately, with Google Translate, language should no longer be a problem.
But what if you don't want to be in the family? In the west we have that freedom to be different.
We also have the freedom to say the equivalent of Bush did 9/11 : on June 4 1989 the CCP massacred thousands.
Now the point of one big family is that the stability of the family, keeping everything going together peacefully means you don't rock the boat, you have to not speak out about how your uncle is a criminal. One big family ensures family members voluntarily censor themselves and consider those saying June 1989 Tianamen Square as literal existential threats to the stability of the family. Where in the west we can say Trump is part of a global conspiracy to X,y,z in China to do the same means attacking the very identity and stability of your own person, your bio family, your town and your nation. The story that is believed is that this stability was won through so much bloodshed. Anything must be done to stop rocking the boat. Chinese people really cannot be free as they don't know what it is. They see HK as an alcoholic daughter that needs to be treated to get well and join the rest of the family. Same with the Muslims. They are both different and in China difference is a fundamental threat.
Yes, diversity is crucial for the survival of our species. The more I learn and think about all things, I'm seeing it's linked to genetic diversity, and many other physical health issues.
Diversity is hard to swallow, given our tribalistic nature, but we have no choice but to foster and protect it, now that we're hyper globalised.
China's action to standardise and promote monoculture is a big failure that will eventually collapse in the future. It's just a question of when.
It's hard to understand calling China to promote monoculture while the West wants Western democracy everywhere in the world. Sure, you don't recognize our way as democracy, but it doesn't stop us from doing so.
Xinjiang has more mosques than the whole United States. It's hypocritical to call China anti-muslim. At least we don't forbid muslims to enter our country. And we haven't ever bombarded their homelands.
What we're doing to the Uygurs is to help them earn more and lead a better life. Many Uygurs migrated to other provinces and opened up noodle shops. Those back at home may get along with the old ways, but the old ways don't have computers or other modernized tools and entertainments. And we want to help them understand why it is good to treat their women equally, and why it is good to live peacefully with atheists.
A family means helping each other, of course you can choose a different career and life. But you can't attract robbers to beat and smash things at home.
You think you have freedom because you know where the bottom line is. Imagine you publish a detailed crime plan. How long will the FBI come to your door?
The issue is that protest is allowed and encouraged in the west. Its actually necessary for the system. Instability is central to the west. It grows and changes with change.
Those in China see this and are horrified. To them, freedom and instability equal bloodshed and violence. Any rights should be given up to ensure the safety of one's family. If you have no freedom as a child you will be happier as your mother and father will look over you. teenage rebellion is also not encouraged culturally for example.
It's interesting to understand the CCP mind set. It explains the almost non sensical criticism of "freedoms" often heard. As most westerner don't understand China, similarly most mainland Chinese don't understand the west.
What if you don't want to be in a Western family? Ask the southerners in the American Civil War. They wanted out, and see what they got.
I can understand the need of diversity in a country, diversity of races, opinions, religions, etc. We want diversity too, so long as it is within our country. If by being Muslim means you want out of the country, is it for or against diversity on your part?
His Twitter account would briefly get more clicks than Trump's, and a swarm of congress-critters would fight each other for the privilege of having him hauled in front of their panel for a grueling, multi-hour session of righteous posturing, all televised live. Then the late night shows would create condensed, only slightly exaggerated but far more entertaining versions of their performance. By day four, everybody would have moved on to the next outrage du jour.
There would be no consequences because we have human rights. Hong Kong used to have those, and now they’ve lost them, which is a sad thing for humanity. Further, they’ve retroactively lost them - he and many others have been arrested for things they did before the national security law was in force, and so were legal at the time in their free society. China, by arresting them ex post facto, has proven them right.
You’re the one who needs to read more and get a new perspective - all you are doing is repeating the very common, very boring mainstream Chinese opinion.
Guess what? I don’t agree with many of the recent infringements on constitutional rights in the US either. I can criticize my country because I’m not a blind nationalist. And the US doing something wrong doesn’t excuse what China is doing to a formerly free society.
Further, it’s impossible for anything to be more vague than the HK national security law - there must be some level of maximum vagueness and China has achieved it with this law.
Edit: I see you’ve linked Nathan Rich - what a horrible source. Why don’t you link the actual law you’re talking about?
Reply to your last point first, you are right, I should quote easy-to-read material. I quote Nathan Rich because I first saw this law in his video. I extracted the link so that others can read it:
In fact, China has learned a lot from the United States. Before the Hong Kong National Security Law was released, some people joked that it would be better to copy the laws of the United States directly, so that many disputes can be avoided.
I think no one wants his rights to be restricted until his right to life is threatened. If a group of people say they will destroy everything until the government compromises, then the streets are destroyed, the unemployment rate rises, and relatives hate each other. Someone will accept that all this must be legally bound.
That's great, you linked something specific to talk about. Interestingly, the actual application of that law demonstrates how rights are protected in the US. You may know that Chairman Xi thinks there should never be an independent judiciary in China. So the vague national security law there ends up as nothing but a tool of the state to arrest those it doesn't like.
In the US, the Supreme Court balances that law against our constitutional rights, rendering it almost unenforceable. In fact, the way that law is applied is very specific, not vague at all.
Nathan Rich and people like him may be fun for you to watch because they confirm your worldview and reinforce your biases, but I suggest you read some real legal scholars if you're interested in actually educating yourself.
Edit: Also, getting back to the origin of this thread, nothing in US law prohibits what Jimmy Lai did. And nothing prohibited it when he did it in Hong Kong. Even besides how disgusting this law is, applying it retroactively is truly appalling.
We live in different legal systems. Sometimes I also have a lot of questions about the laws of the United States, because Trump has signed a lot of executive orders to ban Huawei and TikTok, without going through the court or Congress, and they are effective.
Back to Hong Kong, the Hong Kong National Security Law is not retroactive:
> Article 39 This Law shall apply to acts committed after its entry into force for the purpose of conviction and imposition of punishment.
The police found evidence that he violated the law after the National Security Act was released, so they arrested him. I wait for the Hong Kong police to release more information.
YouTuber is just one of my information channels, and I also go to the websites or forums of protesters.
> Trump has signed a lot of executive orders to ban Huawei and TikTok, without going through the court or Congress, and they are effective.
The President has emergency powers in existing law to regulate foreign trade in this general way, for the purpose of rapidly responding to action by hostile foreign nations executed through trade including through notionally private firms.
Well, I live in China, so technically we don't. You can say we were born under different legal systems. In China, law is often a tool to punish those the state doesn't like.
Trump hasn't banned TikTok yet, and the powers he is trying to use for that were given to him by Congress. It hasn't gone through courts yet, though, so you need to read more about it before making claims. This seems to be a pattern with you.
They claim it is not retroactive - but I highly doubt it. And you yourself said he was being punished for things that happened before it was in place.
> I can criticize my country because I’m not a blind nationalist.
Are you sure you aren't? Let's see those comments criticizing your country.
> And the US doing something wrong doesn’t excuse what China is doing to a formerly free society.
Why doesn't it, when the US is the "leader of the free world", as you like to call yourselves? Seems to me you are holding China to a higher standard than the US. Why is that?
I’m very sure. Do you actually have an issue with the substance of what I said? Obviously I’m not going to link you to all my online accounts to prove to you whether I’ve sufficiently criticized the US.
I’m going to very briefly reply to your second point, because I don’t think you’re discussing in good faith. Whether or not the US does something wrong is irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of China’s actions, because I don’t think the US is some sort of Platonic ideal of a perfect state. My thought process is not: US good, China different, therefore bad.
Maybe the new national security law of HK is less than the Platonic ideal of a perfect law. Is it also fair to say that you think the National Security Law of the US is bad too? Since chloerei stated that it "is broader and stricter than China" and you didn't refute it. Can you elaborate on that? Since it's your own country and you should be much better informed to comment on that than on the HK law.
There is no law named "National Security Law" in the United States, he was just using it as a poor deflection, as you know. Once he linked a specific law, I elaborated. You can check it out if you actually care.
Well, one difference is that the Supreme Court basically killed the law as written because it conflicted with the 1st Amendment. Can you find anyone who has been prosecuted since the case I linked? Prosecutors aren’t going to use the law anymore because any judge all over the country will reject the argument. Look up how legal precedent works, I guess...
Do you think that will happen in Hong Kong? The Hong Kong law is also far broader and more vague.
Look, I don’t think I’ll be replying to you further. You’re not trying to actually learn anything, you’re extremely disingenuous, and you don’t raise any interesting points, or really any coherent argument at all. If you want to learn more about the difference between China’s legal system, or the neutered Hong Kong legal system, and the US, do it on your own. I’m not going to hold your hand anymore.
Chinese people want stability above all. Freedom of speech, the freedom to unbalance the boat is less important than stability. The story is that China has won its stability and peace through so much blood and war, anything is better than going back to those times.
In the west, we use freedoms of speech to balance the boat from one side to the other. Freedom of speech is the mechanism for stability. Freedom of speech is primarily how something is told they are wrong.
Freedoms are also why I can write: Bush destroyed the twin towers on 9 11 and killed thousands but you cannot say the CCP killed thousands on June 1989 in tiannamen square. Both events in history before many users here were even born. It's not only that it's illegal for you but censorship ensures that the boat is stable and the sea is calm. for Chinese, censorship is stability, freedom is the threat. You literally, emotionally, don't want to say those things, and you don't feel bad about it. Most westerners don't understand this. Freedom and difference to China means bloodshed and instability.
there are of course limits to freedom of speech in the west, direct calls to violence are out for example.
However encouraging protests is not encouraging violence even if the protests become violent riots later. In China protests are illegal by default because they might upset the boat potentially.
I think Hong Kong used to be a test field to test how the democratic system will be implemented in China. However, the experience of the past few years has shown a failure. The government's work has been unreasonably opposed by the opposition parties, and the people have been incited to riot.
Under this negative example, people in China who yearn for the American system are already ashamed to speak up. I even suspect that the purpose of Hong Kong’s opposition parties is to prevent democratization in China.
The demonstrators have a slogan "Non Separation", which means that peaceful demonstrations and violent demonstrations are not separated. They are all part of the entire movement. Peaceful demonstrators were hijacked by violent demonstrators.
How was it shown a failure? Because one side didn’t get what they want? All while mainland security forces were kidnapping booksellers and trying to erode rights at every step? There was no failure of democracy in Hong Kong, the mainland was just too impatient and too power hungry.
It’s not the purpose of the opposition to prevent democratization, that’s silly. The people were not “incited to riot”, they did their best to make their voices heard. But China didn’t actually want to hear their voices. And you’ve completely fallen for the propaganda. You haven’t tried to really empathize with the people losing their freedoms. You don’t understand what a nightmare it has been for them.
I just want to say thank you for providing your perspective to help balance out all the uninformed China-bashing. And for taking the time to address all the points that others have brought up in their replies.
I highly recommend doing some reading about what Xi and the CCP are really thinking and planning. It's a fascinating situation, and I'm not sure we or even they precisely know. But there has been a feel of a very dark turn overall in recent years, where perhaps an alignment between an appearance of widespread and growing failures of the US-led world order combined with China's unabated growing power, has cemented in many Chinese a sense that they truly do have the superior system. And if so we should expect to see continued growing trial runs of China flexing its increased power, in part just to see if anyone can stop them.
This recent piece from an influential Beijing professor Jiang Shigong[1] of "Xi Jinping Thought" fame, openly frames and justifies China seizing control as leader of the global empire, "Empire and World Order"[2]
[The current state of world empire] faces three great unsolvable problems: the ever-increasing inequality created by the liberal economy; state failure, political decline, and ineffective governance caused by political liberalism; and decadence and nihilism created by cultural liberalism. In the face of these difficulties, even the United States has pulled back in terms of worldwide military strategy, which means that world empire 1.0 is currently facing a great crisis, and that revolts, resistance, and revolution from within the empire are unravelling the system. ...
We might conclude that we are living in an age of chaos, conflict, and massive change in which world empire 1.0 is in decline and trending toward collapse, while we are as yet unable to imagine world empire 2.0. Yet we must recognize that change in the form of empire is a long historical process. The several thousand years of the history of mankind have witnessed only three great changes in imperial form, and each of these changes has been accompanied by great conflicts and chaos. At the same time, we cannot deny that these ages of historical transition have also created the opportunity for each civilization to construct world empire 2.0. The civilization that is able to provide genuine solutions to the three great problems facing world empire 1.0 will also provide the blueprint for world empire 2.0. As a great world power that must look beyond its own borders, China must reflect on her own future, for her important mission is not only to revive her traditional culture. China must also patiently absorb the skills and achievements of humanity as a whole, and especially those employed by Western civilization to construct world empire. Only on this basis can we see the reconstruction of Chinese civilization and the reconstruction of the world order as a mutually re-enforcing whole.
There really is a coherent internal logic to why China can solve the 3 problems identified with the liberal order. A very dystopian logic, in my opinion. But worth some serious thought; where this all is heading.
I highly recommend doing some reading about Wallerstein's world systems theory and Kojin Karatani's The Structure of Empire, from which Jiang obviously drew his influence. If you think the global empire is something dystopian you may have misunderstood its use in its theoretical context.
Where did you read this propaganda that you're parroting here?
In the past few decades, the global wealth inequality has decreased significantly (under the leadership of the "US empire" nevertheless).
China isn't communist, it's just a dictatorship. Very capitalist. Huge inequality as well, growing faster than the West and approaching US wealth inequality. I can't see how there would be less inequality under the rule of the "Chinese empire".
> In the past few decades, the global wealth inequality has decreased significantly
I'm guessing that you are thinking about the number of people that have risen from poverty (lead by China, not US) because I could not find one source that is talking about decreased global wealth inequality. In fact, every single source that I could find on a short notice is talking about the rise of global wealth inequality in the last few decades.
But how high is the ceiling? What are you allowed to express, even though it’s controversial? Westerners all know that the ability to criticize those above you is the only check valve in the system, what drives our society to fix its actual, true problems. Not the problems that the governing elite recognizes. Riots are an expression, and they were in Hong Kong too. But the CCP did not listen.
This is a very rosy presentation of westerners that I'd go so far as to say is a lie that western people tell themselves. Where is the protection for critics of progressivism when they lose their jobs in the US for example? Where is the outcry when Europeans advocating collecting racial information during crimes get blanketly labeled racist for something that's standard practice across the world? The west has rapidly been devolving into authoritarianism as well, it's simply social authoritarianism rather than government authoritarianism.
> it's simply social authoritarianism rather than government authoritarianism
While I agree that "social authoritarianism" is pretty shitty, I'll take it over "government authoritarianism" any day of the week (mind you, we're commenting on a story about someone being jailed for speech, not just fired).
Sometimes that social mob burns your business down and then calls you short-sighted or racist for not being supportive anymore. There's a difference sure but it's not quite as night and day as fired vs. dead.
The CCP will put you in an "education camp" if you don't agree with their ideas. Survivors from these camps are present all over the world, it is no secret - neither their existence, or how they work.
As an old Chinese man said, "love, ideals, loyalty, none of that matters anymore once your food is taken away." You _will_ report your family as traitors if that's what is standing between you and starvation.
We must never excuse the horrors going on in China, and we must always recognize that civil unrest is always the symptom, never the disease.
EDIT: For the downvoters, I'd appreciate it if you come with replies. I wrote this reply like this expecting replies (with downvotes of course).
I'm trying to self reflect a lot here. Forgive my provoking thoughts.
Looking at even the US itself crumbles in today's misinformation world. I now have doubts in Democracy like Socrates did. If not for HK, Taiwan, and Uyghur Muslims, I'd consider Xi's dictatorship a good modern day role dictatorship.
What are the alternatives? Democracy has failed us in today's increasingly complex society, with free flow of misinformation everywhere. Education doesn't fix the problem. Critical thinking is hard, thinking is hard. Free education and free information doesn't fix the problem because people believe what they want to believe.
As long as a country has stability and peace and the prosperity of its citizens, then shouldn't it be in that country's best interest to crush any opposition by any means necessary, including committing actions that are provoking UN or violating Geneva Convention left and right. Won't good (from the perspective of its citizens) dictatorship is better than crumbling Democracy?
But power corrupts. Eventually it will. And the dictators will be overthrown, pulling the pendulum in the other direction.
> What are the alternatives? Democracy has failed us in today's increasingly complex society, with free flow of misinformation everywhere. Education doesn't fix the problem. Critical thinking is hard, thinking is hard. Free education and free information doesn't fix the problem because people believe what they want to believe.
> As long as a country has stability and peace and the prosperity of its citizens, then shouldn't it be in that country's best interest to crush any opposition by any means necessary, including committing actions that are provoking UN or violating Geneva Convention left and right. Won't good (from the perspective of its citizens) dictatorship is better than crumbling Democracy?
If you're curious why you're downvoted, it was probably because of this "argument." You're saying democracy has failed and list some problems. Then, because of those problems, you appear to advocate for a rather nasty dictatorship, where those very same problems you just complained about would be worse.
I was thinking as long as there is peace and prosperity for its citizens, then surveillance state is a smaller price to pay for most people. Xi was praised by majority of mainlanders because he lifted the country out of poverty.
The thing with China is, it is insanely big. How to govern this big country effectively if not dictatorship?
I previously tried to compare Japan and SK to China. But I realized that their culture is drastically different, and SK and Japan is also a much smaller country.
> Xi was praised by majority of mainlanders because he lifted the country out of poverty.
What? Xi took power in 2012, long after the lifting happened.
> The thing with China is, it is insanely big. How to govern this big country effectively if not dictatorship?
If it's too big to govern except through ruthless means, then maybe that means it's just too big, period. There's no moral imperative that says empires have to remain whole through any means necessary.
> Xi was praised by majority of mainlanders because he lifted the country out of poverty.
No, CCP is the entity people often attribute China's economic rise to. And even that is not completely correct; Deng opened up the market a bit, and the Chinese people themselves took the opportunity to rebuild the economy from the ruins of central planning.
> How to govern this big country effectively if not dictatorship?
You can say that about groups of any size. It is often said a benevolent dictator is the most efficient and effective way to run a group: see Linux for an example.
But this only works if everyone has shared goals and shared values. What if people have different opinions? Hint: look at how much China spends on "stability maintenance" (维稳) each year: it's bigger than their military budget.
History repeats itself. Just 30 years ago the Soviet Union was dissolved. If you study this dissolution process, you see that demonstrations and the ambition to sovereignty was nothing new in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, but in comparison to the 50s, 60s and 70s, Gorbachev did not use military force to prevent countries from splitting off.
If China lets HK go independent, there is a chance of a chain reaction: Guangdong, Xinjiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia.. just to name a few. This would mean to total collapse of the PRC.
But in comparison to the USSR, China's economy is highly intertwined with the global economy.
I would even go that far and say that a successful HK independence movement could have the chance to lead to a total collapse of the global economy on a scale that makes this Corona recession look like a Kindergarden.
Don't get me wrong. I LOVE HK, I lived and worked there. I have also lived and worked in Mainland China. It is sad to see that HK will likely become just a random Chinese city and lose its uniqueness. I just wished that there would be a mutual process of this unification and China would move slower towards it, while HK would accept that the China of 2047 will look different from China today.
But HKers aren't even asking for full independence. They want to retain the democracy and freedom they've had so far.
And the parallels with Soviet Union's collapse is debatable. At that point Soviet Union was on the brink of economic disaster, while China is at the height of their military and economic power.
I have to point out that under British rule, there was no democracy. If they want things exactly like they have before, the central government would send a governor to HK instead of having their own governor.
China wanted HK to be special and successful, to use it as a showcase for the 'one country two systems' model. Now China just want to not lose HK. Huge change in thinking.
You can blame Sir Alexander Grantham and successive incompetent Governors such as Chris Patten who failed to implement democratic reforms well ahead of the handover.
Well, they did not really have much choice. China had made their position quite clear:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Hong...
"1960s
China's leaders explicitly wanted to "preserve the colonial status of Hong Kong".[21] Liao Chengzhi, a senior Chinese official in charge of Hong Kong affairs, said in 1960 that China "shall not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Territories liberated" should the status quo (i.e. colonial administration) be changed. The warning killed any democratic development for the next three decades"
Democratic reform was cancelled before the communists took power. Read the paragraph before the one you just posted.
> In 1946, shortly after the war, critical voices were raised against colonialism. Governor Sir Mark Young proposed a 48-member Municipal Council with significant competence to govern, one-third elected by non-Chinese, one third by Chinese institutions and one-third by Chinese individuals, known as the "Young Plan", believing that, "to counter the Chinese government's determination to recover Hong Kong, it was necessary to give local inhabitants a greater stake in the territory by widening the political franchise to include them."[9] The reform failed because of much resistance from expatriate companies, a new conservative and mistrustful governor, and London's fears of Hong Kong becoming a political battleground between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China (CPC).
"The reform failed because of much resistance from expatriate companies, a new conservative and mistrustful governor, and London's fears of Hong Kong becoming a political battleground between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China (CPC)."
That seems a sensible position for 1946. But things changed till 1960 and the UK were far more pliable to allow democratic self governance then.
I don't think it was a sensible position at all. It was a total abandonment of delivering autonomy that had been afforded to other colonies - Canada, Australia and New Zealand - based on Alexander Grantham's, frankly racist views, that Hong Kongers weren't British.
>I have to point out that under British rule, there was no democracy. If they want things exactly like they have before, the central government would send a governor to HK instead of having their own governor.
You miss out the last part, the British governor would actually listen to the people.
HK had almost 95% of what defines as democracy, freedom of assembly and speech, inclusiveness and equality, membership, consent, right to life and minority rights. It is only missing some part of voting.
PRC has total control over mainland China. There is 0 risk of fragmentation.
HK is a separate entity in every sense, so is Taiwan.
USSR collapsed because its economic and political system crumbled from the inside, enabling Poland et. al. to get out from under their thumb, which is what they always wanted to do.
If China had economic turmoil, mainland would stay intact in one way or another.
The CCP might look stronger than it actually is. Due to the restricted flow of information, a lot of the conflicts are not well publicized.
If the CCP were to collapse, it'd be from the inside.
Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan always wanted independence.
It's difficult enough to unify a small group so just imagine with 1.4 billion people.
Control in China is tenuous on some level - if the CCP fails, it might be total chaos.
Tibet however, doesn't have any power. They are aboriginals crushed under the weight of Han Imperialism. I mean, if China was in economic turmoil for a decade, and Han leadership was weak, or had the self awareness to allow for some autonomy, and there was 'world pressure on them' - possibly Tibet could make a break.
But it's not like Poland under USSR.
Just like every ruler of China in history, whoever gets 'some control' will want 'all of it' and mainland would probably be easy to unite, due to historical facts.
So barring serious collapse and revolution, it looks like HK is just PRC and that's that, and Taiwan will probably remain independent so long as US and EU exist in any material form.
Your guys don't know about 1.4b Chinese. If they are as well knowledge and informed as your guys, it's hard to unify. But if they only have one information source, one chat tool, one history book, they will be one brain-cell dummy. USSR don't have wisdom to simplify information，history and even Internet. Unified is what Chinese love to have. That's why things happen in HK. You are over estimated Chinese people. China is not USSR. People don't have gun. Government won't give up their power. Tear down China great firewall is only thing your guys can help keep freedom existing, not just for Chinese or HKer, but also for your future. Fear might over come freedom someday unexpected.
First of all, there are those who asked for independence but that is definitely not the majority.
Secondly, if we are looking at history, why would we look at USSR instead of the history of China? There is never a regime change until a civil war broke out, and there is always blood involved.
The economic collapse seems like a misattributiation of the USSR's collapse's cause. The collapse was because the economy turned out to be a lie fundamentally.
Now China has certainly been cooking the hell out of the books but given the other sides of transactions with the outside world we have an idea of the of the real as quite large.
If we are collectively incapable of making any difference in this terrible transformation, then we could do the next thing CCP will hate: do a proper study of how population’s behavior changes as it transitions from a free mentality to the oppressed state mainland’s had been in for years. This is the chance.
I'm not aware of any precedents to date, but a rigorous scientific record of this kind would be extremely valuable as a reference proof against future gaslighting and dubious arguments.
The process is already under way, anecdotally some normally outgoing folks (Hongkongers and involved) are reluctant to post this on social media or discuss it with you unless they trust the channel.
If a scientist studying cancer calls cancer terrible in a casual conversation, they can still produce valid rigorous work about it. We'd have approximately zero research done if we disqualified everybody with a personal opinion about what they're studying. No one's unbiased, but basic science methodology helps us reveal and eliminate/compensate for our biases.
It doesn't matter whether you personally think oppressing human freedom is terrible or not—your work will not be any less useful. Its results may even challenge your own subjective opinion on the matter.
Why do you believe this? It is very much not true. If you wanted to study, for instance, how societies collapse, you don't need to be impartial about the notion of societal collapse. If you wanted to study war, you don't need to be impartial to war.
All science starts with a hypothesis and many of those are rooted in partiality. The point is to have an investigative method which proves or disproves that hypothesis.
The fact that science reveals truth even though it can start with partiality is why the scientific method is the gold standard.
When it comes to politics, HN is similar to Reddit. People just comment by emotion and ideology, because they could feel the satisfaction by chanting the beautiful words of democracy and freedom, without burden of insightgul knowledge of history and culture of other people and countries.
Some here even wanted to start a war with China in the name of human rights. Remember crusades in the name of Christian?
Most people here don't know or don't care if HK was a democracy under UK, and don't care if there is a law to guard the arrest of Jimmy Lai and if ordinary HK people are sick of Ted Cruz etc coming to HK to fan up fire when HK was burning, whom and also other US politicians Jimmy Lai has met with.
Edit:
For those who don't know, Ted Cruz came over to HK to show his support in Oct. 20019 when HK was burning. And the most despicable was he claimed no riots in HK. That was the moment HK's fate was sealed.
HK's political movements have no leadership or strategy at all. This kind of acts would turn all Mainland people against them. And CCP would feel empowered to do what ever.
My point is the situation in HK is much complicated than beautiful democracy vs evil CCP. It's much more than ideology.
Last year you posted, "HK protect started peacefully now turned into riot with no clear political purpose".
Do you now understand why those riots were important ? Because the National Security laws are being used to crackdown on dissent exactly as the HK protestors predicted.
This arrest is actually an opportunity to test if the new security law has some merits. Jimmy Lai has the resource to defend himself in court. Let's wait for it to unfold.
I’m going to get downvoted for saying this but I will.
The wealthiest people on the planet who actually influence what governments do prioritize wealth accumulation above nationalism presently. If they didn’t every nation wouldn’t be so in bed with each other at this point.
The aggression is a display of power and generate a ‘feeling’ of superiority to keep a population content.
There won’t be a war. We’ll only see large scale wars again when our environment collapses and wealth extraction is no longer the number one priority. Having food, water, and other natural resources that were once plenty go scarce will cause war.
Perhaps this will never happen but I’m assuming it will. The wealth extraction phase will continue to abuse our planet at peak efficiency until Earth can no longer handle it. Then you will have war.
As an expat living in Hong Kong, I've noticed a clear change of mood since the ramming-through of the National Security Law last month. Protests have all but died, and people are genuinely aware of having lost their relative freedoms of speech and assembly. Businesses on the "yellow" (pro-protest) side are distancing themselves from their support of the movement. Politicians are quitting opposition parties because they're afraid of being disappeared. Individuals are afraid to go out and protest. A friend recently asked me to keep a hard hat for her because she was afraid that if she was caught with it at her house it'd be evidence she participate in the protests.
China has basically given up any semblance of autonomy for Hong Kong. It's clear who runs the show here. Carrie Lam is universally despised (her approval ratings make Trump look like Mother Theresa). Nobody respects authority anymore. It's clear in daily life.
While the timeline was accelerated this year, it's hard to imagine that there could have been a different outcome. It's been decades now since the UK formally handed over HK to the Chinese central government, and the Chinese have always said they would integrate it slowly into mainland China.
Hundreds of thousands of HKers have been migrating out of China for decades.
I'm unclear why people expected HK to ever be autonomous permanently?
> I'm unclear why people expected HK to ever be autonomous permanently?
No one did, but the treaty said it would semi-autonomous for 50 years. These actions are 27 years early, so they didn't even keep their end of the deal for half the time they promised.
Also, a lot can happen in three decades, and one could have held out hope that the PRC could have undergone some kind of liberal reforms before the treaty expired.
It's not that people expected HK to be autonomous permanently, but that it was expected that opening access to the west for the whole of China, and to western economies, and especially through Hong Kong, would lead to a rising Chinese middle class who would want more liberal democratic values, and a corresponding decrease in paranoia by the ruling elite.
There is historical evidence that suggests that liberal values flourish better with prosperity, just as environmental and anti-pollution awareness increases once people rise above subsistence.
If you're feeling despair, there are real things that you can do. I do one thing that makes me proud every day.
I run an obfs4 Tor bridge on an old Linux Mint box that's just sitting around in my home.*
The bare minimum thing that Chinese and any other country's citizens need is information, and freedom of information. This is where tech truly, truly helps.
[*] Yes, they may first need to connect to a working VPN, but that's OK, to really become free they can then connect to a Tor bridge like mine.
I am more worried being implicated with distribution of child pornography. The government is watching what comes through the pipes, and it’s your name on the pipe.
Oh in my case it's an entry bridge I run, not an exit relay. That's the one you really need to worry about being. It's not recommended anyone does that (at least at home). What I'm recommending is very safe as it doesn't directly connect your computer or IP address to anything bad. I've run this node for about 2 years now. Tor project has excellent explainer pages about the risks and how it all works.
If however you mean not being involved with the Tor project in any capacity whatsoever, I really insist that that's the wrong, and a very dangerous anti-freedom philosophy to take.
At some point, we have to take a stand and defend the right to absolute encryption for anybody, no questions asked. Why? Because this is the normal human experience.
Privacy is normal and healthy. Having everything you do recorded and stored by others permanently, is not normal or healthy.
The more you use and promote the use of encryption, privacy and anti-censorship technologies in benign and good contexts like mine, the less it's dismissed as an automatic indicator of crime.
As far as I'm concerned, I consider myself lucky that I have legal freedom of association in my own country so that I can even safely run this Tor bridge. As to the court of public opinion on the social level in my community, all I need to do is explain this important humanitarian use case that I do it for.
There are substantial number of internet users capable of breaking out of the GFW. At least to my knowledge. The VPN request signature is actually very obvious and prone to be recognised by GFW. There are many other recommended methods. A large market is available for this purpose.
Also promote bitcoin in China. CCP survives on the money it can threaten and coerce out of its popularity. Bitcoin removes people's assets from CCP control
I don't know in Hong Kong but it's blocked already in the mainland since a week ago. There are currently workarounds but they will probably get around to blocking those as well.
Tor don't work well in China. So is VPN. Chinese don't even know it exist. It's hard for none tech people. Even all Smart tech people in China know how to use these tools, it's still less than 0.00001.
Make some virus-like dummy tools. As far as mobile or PC infected. They will connect global internet not China LAN. It must infect nearby devices as well. That's the only way to help.
Jimmy Lai is one of the most inspiring democrat activist of HK. With his wealth, he could have arranged a refuge and left HK months ago, instead of staying and being exposed to the increasingly beligerant CCP/Hong Kong bootlickers.
A sad day for HK. I hope the world does not let him be detained indefinitely, like what has happened to Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo.
The world may not have many options to help. They can raise a stink, and they can make things a bit economically painful for China. But China can choose to ignore both of those.
Some simple logic:
1. US media is capable of being biased on certain subjects (FOX news, Trump), for more clicks, or for political reasons
2. China is a long term threat to US economy and political systems, and is generally hated by the people right now
3. Thus it's possible that what you read everyday is biased
4. Then you hate China more, then media notices that and be more biased. It's a loop leading to justified extreme actions.
Just keep this possibility in mind
As a Chinese living in the US, reading China related news/comments is like watching FOX, or Trump watching CNN. Maybe I am also biased, but that's my feeling.
"Have you been to Xinjiang yourself? You know, Xinjiang is regarded as the most beautiful place in (China)"
- quote from the China Ambassador to UK when asked why Uyghur Muslims were hooded and loaded onto trains.
An average American has no reason to hate on China, but it doesn't mean we can't stand up for the ethnic groups that are being oppressed within China's borders. The congressional testimonies by the Uyghurs refugees is truly terrifying.
Doing business with China literally means you are in support of their government's actions. T-shirts, medical masks, a regular bottle of ketchup, its all made from slave labor in Xinjiang.
Less arguing, more tools.that's what hacker shall do.
Tor don't work well in China. So is VPN. Chinese don't even know it exist. It's hard for none tech people. Even all Smart tech people in China know how to use these tools, it's still less than 0.00001. Make some virus-like dummy tools, that's what hacker shall do. As far as mobile or PC infected. They will connect global internet not China LAN. It must infect nearby devices as well. That's the only way to help.
371 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 194 ms ] threadWe have seen harsh sanctions fail to bring changes in a small poor country like NK where anyone looking South must be amazed at where they could have been.
In case of PRC, forget a kinetic physical action. Their economy is so interconnected with every other major economy that no one can afford even actual sanctions.
I am hopeful that the sheer number of citizens in HK would perhaps lead to the city retaining some of its independence. We can't predict the future... who knows? What if Xi dies in the next 5 years and his successor isn't such a hardliner?
For IT profession though, it's more flexible. Personally, I have worked in a multi-nation develop team, and the experience is good.
And yet it happened. From racist Jim Crow laws to Gay Rights, the progress made in 100 years is astonishing.
Give the PRC 100 years and who knows how it might change.
china has none of that
No one imagined it in the 1920s because they had already imagined it in the 1860s but got Jim Crow instead.
Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
So in your view, what were we supposed to learn from history?
The south will burn again
Not suddenly, but every other major economy could probably afford a gradual distancing that ends up in more-or-less the same place.
I think Germany's actions speak far more than any other country's. I would have assumed someone like Merkel to be tough here based on her standing on social issues and how she handled the migrant crisis. She, at least in the West had an image of a liberal leader with the right attitude on challenges of our times like climate change. But even Germany seems to be tiptoeing around while they look to sign a trade deal.
https://youtu.be/Db7ON82kBGA
Similar to how Russia murders defectors [0], it’s not a good idea to be an expat and criticize China. It is an authoritarian regime, bottom line.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvi...
For example, Julian Assange, Kim Dotcom, and Richard O'Dwyer were all prosecuted for crimes committed outside the US.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/01/china/hong-kong-activists-arr...
R.I.P Westphalian sovereignty
> R.I.P Westphalian sovereignty
This reminds me of our arrest (well, Canada's arrest at our demand) of Meng Wanzhou.
>"Trudeau also rejected the idea of a prisoner swap for Meng Wanzhou — eldest daughter of Huawei’s billionaire founder Ren Zhengfei — saying an exchange would “demonstrate to China that they can just arrest Canadians and get what they want out of Canada.” "
Calling it "bank fraud" is just a way of avoiding the question of what she did that was wrong. Who's arresting Anish Kapoor and his co-conspirators for committing fraud against Stuart Semple?
It's not like she was simply on vacation buying tourist kitsch in Tehran or selling Hwawei equipment to Iranian companies. I believe the allegation is that both the equipment export and the payment sides of the transactions touched US soil and violated US law.
The validity of the iran embargo does not play a lot into this.
USA arrests, say Islamic terrorists, for conduct that occurred outside USA. If you incite acts against USA you will get charged no matter where you are.
The russian who ran an african "security" company, just before Erik Prince started his post-Blackwater african project, was arrested in thailand and sent to the US.
(This is probably a good place to remind any HK'ers with piles of the ready, who have not already invested in Vancouver, that Subic Bay is no longer a US naval base, but instead offers condos and a yacht harbour, all within cruising distance of HK.)
Before handover, HK police would come in pairs, with at least one english and one cantonese speaker. My (very pale and blonde) friend's hobby was to approach the cantonese speaking cop, who would gesticulate wildly pointing at their partner ... and ask a question in decent cantonese.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20729614
I've never really seen such personally. People occasionally petition the central government due to grievances, but those people are heavily monitored, strongly discouraged, and later suffer negative repercussions (I know one such individual personally).
There are occasionally protests regarding local issues: housing demolition, environmental problems. They are not allowed to persist. I've never seen these in person.
I used to very occasionally see graffiti critical of the government, but I don't think I've see such in 5+ years. I figure the omnipresence of the security cameras have discouraged this.
I once received a robocall from the Falun Gong critiquing the government. I also occasionally see Falun Gong messages stamped on paper currency.
That's about it. I'm curious about the specifics of the case(s) about which you've heard.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2008/08/13/china-police-detain-woul...
http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2011/11/enemy-of-monarchy-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign
It can't be lawful to initiate violence or excessively respond to violence initiated by others. Not many people rush to immigrate to Russia, China, North Korea and few other nice places. Take a hint.
I know, because I have been one myself on and off for 20 years.
I know what I'm seeing.
This obviously doesn't change the fact that the CPC at the time, like the CPC of today, is a dictatorial organization that should never be supported. But the quotes in your post very much play into the "evil conspiracy" angle, and I think it's important to tell history in a way that reflects the actual power dynamics instead of cloak-and-dagger tales.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign
> The fact that a lot of the criticism that was made by the citizens was considerably more fundamental than even Mao had expected eventually eroded Mao's position to the point where he was forced to back down.
IIRC, Mao expected the policy to bolster the regime and show how the people genuinely supported it. That didn't happen. Since the goal wasn't to actually let the people express alternative views, they cracked down hard.
I agree it probably wasn't "comic book evil conspiracy," but it's still a good illustration of how risky CCP offers of freedom of speech are.
I have not (over 20 years) had an open political conversation about the party in China and I would never ask my friends there to entertain it even in the US. There is no point. Even in the US I would only discuss US politics, although they often seemed to be effectively related.
I will say that one of the formative descriptions of Chinese history was in the summer palace next to a statue of an emperor (Ming?) who had commited suicide upon being overthrown... he was by account terrible at ruling so I asked why there was a ;large statue. The answer was that by killing himself and not forcing the soldiers to fight and mandarins to destroy records he had maintained stability. This may be apocryphal, but the stories people tell about themselves are very illuminating.
There is definitely a cultural barrier there, around what "politics" even means and the role it should play. Most Chinese people are very jaded in general, and consider all politics, in China and abroad, to be nothing but an expression of entrenched power. As a result, democracy is often seen as an unachievable ideal that also doesn't exist in the west, particularly not in the USA.
In effect, this also means that Westerner's questions about Chinese politics can appear nonsensical or even naive to Chinese people. This is also why people are more likely to talk about corruption, as that is an evil that is considered possible to fight against.
It's the same reason foreign businesses struggle so much in China. If you aren't friendly with the necessary bureaucrats and your Chinese competition is, you'll find yourself blockaded perpetually for the most bullshit reasons.
(This reads as a criticism and almost a "well, aktshually" kind of a post, but I truly don't intend it as such. If anything, it's a stronger warning to Chinese ex-pats: be very careful what you say because the regime's tentacles are numerous and reach far. Not that Chinese citizens don't already know that, though.)
Interpret these how you wish, because they are interpreting these how they wish.
Back when it was the 1 child policy, only the Han had to follow it. The Uighurs and other minorities did not.
Now, everyone has to follow the 2 child policy.
>> Interpret these how you wish, because they are interpreting these how they wish.
> How does force sterilizing of Uighurs fit into a common destiny?
I believe the "common destiny" the GP was referring to is living under the control of the CCP.
While the policy doesn’t exist anymore, it’s not about the policy, but who has the right to decide whether you’re allowed to have children.
[1] https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2019/08/30/hong-kong-activist...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/us/hong-kong-protests-col...
Not when your Education system is literal State propaganda and they deny access to the Internet due to the specific fear of subversive acts, also known as: personal research.
It's one thing to hold an opinion and argue from that POV in honest discourse, its quite another to be operating and rewarded for your loyalty to the State and be monitored and possibly dissapeared if you deviate from this path. This is the same type of Human Conditioning seen during the Soviet Union, which I think can be universally understood to be a negative thing.
Many people in Hong Kong feel as though they've been forgotten by the International Community, the Umbrella Revolution/Yellow Movement was trying to oppose this since 2014, and it mainly went unnoticed other than some sound bites about violent protests, and not much else was understood beyond that.
When what should have been the real focus was the ever increasing Hegemony that was being built by the CCP that could essentially become so seemingly 'indispensable' to those addicted to its cheap labour/manufacturing that it could commit literal Crimes Against Humanity out in the open, lie and cover up International Pandemics that have cost untold Lives and Suffering several times (SARS as well as COVID), and still make People question if it's 'worth' decoupling from China.
That was my biggest fear all along, as I knew Hong Kong (the city) would eventually be returned to China. We stand at a critcal point as a Species on how we Live on Earth and I really want to maintain faith that Humanity can come to the most reasonable albeit difficult conclusion that this cannot continue, but its statements and sentiment like that that make me wonder just how detached people have become to this cancerous threat model. And if they can even muster the ability to be inconvenienced enough to actually see it for what it is instead of detaching into some perpetual self0induced distraction, often viewed from their Chinese made device.
Oh good, so I'm free to speak my own opinion as long as I don't actually try to accomplish anything!
So would calling for the end of the Chinese one-party rule and democratic elections be considered 'really absurd'?
I know people who emigrated from Taiwan before marital law was finally lifted and they were also terrified, even in the US, of criticizing Chiang Kai-Shek. I was told that there were minders on the streets in Taiwan and you might just disappear if they heard you complaining.
The only thing I want to do is point out that Russia has a nearly undeniable record of assassinating dissenters such as Alexander Litvinenko and Sergei/Yulia Skripal in the United Kingdom. China does not yet share this record with Russia, so I feel that your statement coaxes people to interpret China as a murderer on the same level as Russia ("Similar to how Russia murders defectors, it's not a good idea to be an expat and criticize China"). This is an unfair equivalency and I want to point it out.
Look up Anna Politkovskaya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Anna_Politkov...): She was a known critic of Putin and shot/murdered mysteriously. You can search on Google for Russian critics outside of Russia being killed, but as far as I publicly discern, this is not true for Chinese critics. I'm not saying that people haven't been killed for criticizing China overseas, but I will say that publicly you and I do not know of people who have been killed, unlike the obvious case for Russia. My strongest plausible interpretation is that you are saying that it could be the next step for China, and I would agree that it is a possibility.
In fact, if we really want to be exhaustive about overseas assassination of critics, there is Henry Liu who was assassinated in California for criticizing Taiwanese leader Chiang Kai-shek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liu#Confession_of_Chen_C...). If I want to start being concerned about China murdering people, it's not a massive leap of the imagination to believe that they are capable of doing it, but so far, many similar nation-states have done more than China in this regard, such as Taiwan. However, obviously I understand that Taiwan is a fairly different place now compared to 1984 when Henry was assassinated.
In order to be charitable to your comment, I can ask, "Can you explain more about what you mean?" We can argue that China might be murdering critics, but that would be in the case of stuff that happens within its borders, not outside of it. We can also arguably say that China is imposing measures on critics overseas such as economic punishments, but they do not appear to be murdering people. Therefore, I do not think your anecdote about Hong Kong immigrants being killed in the USA adds value to the discussion because it is unsubstantiated to believe that it will happen. I would say that it's believable that HK immigrants could feel threatened or be afraid of retaliation from China through other means, such as online harassment or attacks from the 50 Cent Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party)
Having said all that, I do not want to wait until it reaches the point where China can shamelessly kill people in cities across the globe. My reply to the parent comment is more to point out that our criticisms need to be healthy and balanced, lest the discussion devolves into massive leaps of unsubstantiated thought.
We have invaded others countries for less
It's almost as if "democracy" wasn't the real reason for those invasions.
And the OP is cynical, it takes a lot for the US to mount a proper. Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, and post 9/11 Iraq part 2 + policing actions in Afghanistan are relatively big deals.
For the most part, there's no reason for the US and China to 'go to war'. What would they go to war over? The sheer physicality doesn't provide the opportunity.
Except for Taiwan - which China will go to great lengths to nab, and the US/West may or may not go to great lengths to defend. Even then I don't see war.
China will is not going to otherwise mount a military invasion of anything, it would be too costly. Their version of 'invasion' is called the 'Belt and Road' and it's ensuing corruption.
America finally invaded itself: https://old.reddit.com/r/2020PoliceBrutality/
But both of those reasons would also align with an intervention in China. The true answer to why we haven't intervened is both mundane and terrifying: China has nuclear weapons.
You dont to sanctions to countries that provide most of your goods without a viable alternative. Sanctionning Iran does not change your daily life. Sanctionning China would suddenly make a large impact as to what you can actually buy and at what price.
Beijing would be forced into a very difficult position - attack US forces in Taiwan, leading to massive military escalation, or lose face by allowing the US and Taiwan to call Beijing’s bluff
No it's not.
That China has nukes is not relevant because there's no impetus for the US to be 'invading' China whatsoever.
Other than of course a standoff in Korea 60 years ago, the US and China are not military adversaries.
China absolutely is a geopolitical rival with militaristic and global hegemonic ambitions, and they have already committed to actions that we have gone to war over in the past. And they are on the cusp of a handful of actions that would have triggered a world war if they were done in the past. But nothing will happen to China for the same reason that nothing happened to Russia during the cold war. Because they have nukes.
The US is the only entity that can stand toe to toe with China, as China can splinter any UN or EU response. Ultimately to get some other countries on board, they have to believe the US has their back full-stop. Such that when China starts throwing an inevitable response tantrum, the US will be there to lend unconditional, unflinching support. Who trusts the Trump government's erratic behavior enough to believe that at this point? You have to bet your nation's economic well-being on believing that his administration will have your back if you join the restrain-China coalition. Most countries will naturally avoid taking that risk and will attempt to hedge or dodge the matter. The West will only be able to mount a serious long-term plan once Trump is gone. The powermongers in DC love this style of great power bipolar struggle, a return to the cold war, a very clearly defined giant enemy to focus on; but they can't effectively do anything until Trump is gone, there's too much chaos in the system.
It'll look like this: US + EU + Japan + Britain + South Korea + Canada + Australia + New Zealand + South Korea (along with a few others) working in closer unison, running a program. It's the only approach that can work, China is too big for anything else at this point. China does a thing, the group responds. Huawei is a haphazard trial run; the team is going to have to get into fighting shape, because China isn't messing around, they want the global hegemony crown and total dominance over Asia.
Those countries don't have nukes.
Yet NBA players now bow to China and Hollywood goes to great length to make their movies as little offending to China as possible.
Countries that didn’t have nuclear weapons and ICBMs
It is like asking why the US never invaded the Soviet Union. There was a window in the second half of the 1940s it might have been achievable without global thermonuclear war, albeit a war-weary world that had just endured the biggest war in human history didn’t have the appetite for that
We've only really seen Russian systems in action and they've mostly failed, however it's very easy to argue this is due to poor training. One notable (alleged) engagement in Syria involved a Russian operated s400 battery (the latest and greatest) attempting to shoot down some of the 70+ tomahawks trump launched. Whilst some didn't make it to their targets there's no evidence the s400 hit them rather than them operationally failing. It's unlikely anyone would be better trained than the Russian military itself so if this indeed did happen it is damning for currently fielded IADS's.
Another reason for the apparent ineffectiveness of IADS's could be the west's proficiency at dealing with them:
Jets like the EA-18 growler are designed purely to entice systems to reveal their position (switching on their radar) so another jet can launch an anti-radiation air to ground missile (AGM) at it.
It's very likely the B2, f35 and f22 can't even be targeted by any IADS due to their low radar cross section.
Stand off weapons give the ability to destroy targets without being inside the range of any IADS. These could be used to strike important targets before the IADS is down or to pick the IADS apart itself (if you know where its assets are).
Given all this information I still can't say an anti aircraft system wouldn't be effective.. but I think the fact China is investing heavily into its air force implies that they have the same concerns about IADS effectiveness that I do.
Sorry that was so long, had a Pringles moment!
Going further with sanctions only make sure sanctions will no longer work, for there is nothing valuable to sanction with.
as the article says, anything critical to the Party carries a treason-like sentence.
Apple is happy make a statement about BLM - it is cheap, doesn't cost them anything. But when it comes to things that actually harm profits and challenge shareholder responsibilities, they stay mum. We need to force Apple (and other giant corporations) to speak up about atrocities in HK and what their stance is. Before you downvote me, please, I plead you to respond about your thoughts - is there a reason why we shouldn't? Why is there no noise about this? No one seems to be protesting at Apple HQ.
Imagine:
WWDC 2021 - Opens with strong statements about how Apple supports democracy and open culture, how they appreciate people's voices and ability to think with liberty, how they inspire great people when government is of the people, by the people and for the people.
Alas - democracy will slowly erode away, chip away at a pace slow enough for normal humans like me and you to not be bothered, life goes on. One small step after another. Until you look back at the erosion and its a massive cliff.
Who are the 'we' you're referring to. Why throw a specific company under the bus like that.
Consumers pay with their wallet - may I ask what phone you have? I bet more than half the things you own are made in China.
I am sorry to throw a 1.9 trillion dollar company under the bus.
Yes, I own many made in China products. In fact, it is hard to find anything in my room that's not made in China, including books and bunch of things that I wouldn't even know. Probably the bulb's phosphor coating is manufactured in China and so are the chemicals in my stomach acid tablets.
At least at one point Google stood up for its ideals and quit Search in PRC, which I highly respect. With the criticism Google gets(some rightly so) and the stuff Apple gets away with, I wonder if they look to Apple and see the easy money they left on the table.
Considering a good chunk of the US population (15-30%?) is vocally "anti-BLM" - it is somewhat ballsy for a high-profile company to wear pro-BLM in their corporate messaging - I'm sure we've all seen people on Facebook vow to boycott Apple or other "liberal" organizations.
With that in mind, taking a clear moral stance against China's attack on democracy/human rights is far riskier than BLM branding, especially when you consider who is actually paying for Apple products.
A vocal segment might complaint on Apple, but where would they run to, Google's Android? Google is also pro BLM. All big tech are.
That doesn't really matter. Voluntary boycotts have little effect, and there probably no enough people who are so "anti-BLM" that they'd actually follow through on a boycott for Apple to notice.
I don't think they will seize factories, as it just means every foreign company would look to exit. They will probably simply not allow them to sell their products in mainland and not give them any concessions.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/03/six-apple-product...
I suspect that Apple is moving away from China, but the reality is that doing so takes time.
We are better off letting companies quietly pull out than starting big rights that fundamentally hurt Western firms.
Let them quietly move towards the exits.
And Apple is simply hedging their bets like any responsible company would be doing in this situation. So some manufacturing capability will be moving to India et al but obviously not all and not in the short term.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/world/asia/kashmir-india-...
Are you going to stick to that when one of your Nimitz class carriers is sitting on the bottom of the Pacific and China and Russia have occupying forces on mainland USA?
Lol!
Cynical but this is why- it would cost them a lot, at least today. The Chinese government has zero reservations about sandbagging US corporations that publicly critique it or otherwise don't fall in line - just ask Google, Facebook, or the Houston Rockets. You wont hear a peep out of Apple until they're 100% sure they can break ties and afford any assets seized, have no personnel abroad, etc.
I'm surprised it took until very recently for Apple to start spinning-up alternative supply arrangements and manufacturing in other countries - I guess they expected that the PRC would improve their human-rights situation by now.
Is that something China could realistically do without irreparably harming themselves in the process though? It’s not just Apple’s supply chain that goes through China, it’s everybody’s. And once China demonstrates they are willing to do that, everybody is going to see a China-based supply chain as a gigantic business risk and look elsewhere. Apple can weather that kind of setback, but it would be an existential threat for most businesses and they would need to be proactive. Apple would go elsewhere and lay down the infrastructure, then everybody else would follow in their footsteps.
As far as I can see, China can throw their weight around to a certain extent but their hands are tied when it comes to stronger action because "Apple’s PR saying the wrong thing" is nowhere near as harmful to them as companies diversifying their supply chains en masse.
Interesting how Microsoft's President called for a Hippocratic oath for engineers, while dodging the real problem - decisions which have real impact are made by executives keen on maximizing bonuses.
Think of Google then. Google's exit from China achieves one thing, that is becoming irrelevant to the Chinese people, while giving its competitor a free run of the world biggest internet market.
Control through market is a trick that US has been playing since WWII. It is proven to be effective.
Not being complicit in genocide isn't enough reward by itself?
I'd say even if they relocate 100% of their manufacturing from China, they'd still stay silent because 10B of revenue per quarter is very significant to their top line.
[1]https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/apple-pulls-police-tracki... [2]https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-pulls-vpns-from-china-ap...
https://www.inc.com/glenn-leibowitz/apple-ceo-tim-cook-this-...
If you had to quantify how much Apple supporting BLM has helped decrease racism, it's probably very close to zero. Voicing their support for Hong Kong would accomplish even less. Why would they jeopardize potential billions of dollars to do so?
You are "hackernews" as much as anyone else here. Commenters are individuals holding their own, differing opinions.
The CCP was always against World Peace, just look at their actions, be it in Tienanmen or against the 'others' (non-Han) in Tibet or Xianjing prior to Hong Kong. You think they would hesitate to do any of that, or worse, in Africa as its gotten in deeper over the years?
I've been convinced that we have to move away from Chinese manufacturing reliance for many reasons and have been advocating for this for nearly a decade now, which is what made me end up having to source many things I'd normally buy new on the second hand market that are made in Japan/US/EU or simply often simply do without unless absolutely unavoidable (non obsolete laptops/PC) and even then I'd buy used or repaired broken devices.
But I think it has only now become apparent to the masses that the CCP are utterly insane and suicidal. They lie about everything and nothing they say can be trusted.
I hope we use COVID as the proverbial 'straw that broke the camels back' in what we'd tolerate for mass produced, cheaply made, disposable trinkets from sweatshops using slave labour and move towards a post ;Made in China' World. People like to mock N. Korea, but I fear Xi and the CCP is worse because of how insidious and pervasive they have wielded its influence on the World. The US is guilty of this, too, but China is a violent Autocracy with a long history of erasing People and events from it's History to suit its own end: a perverse form of Powerful State-sponsored Corporatism that seems extremely dystopically Cyberpunk.
Boycotting their goods and returning manufacturing locally is the most effective, and ideally non-violent approach as we isolate and impose an embargo on the CCP until China reforms. The UK did a 180 on the Huawei 5G that essentially did what most thought was impossible and undid and pivoted the Supply Chain with an incredibly short turn-around on the matter proving it can be done if there is a resolve to do so.
With all of the massive unemployment in the US (but all over the World really) and what what will certainly be a soon to be seen retail real estate Apocalypse you'd think any sensible person (oxymoron?) running for office would put 2 and 2 together and see the obvious platform and run on that campaign and win in a landslide.
1: https://www.zdnet.com/article/unmade-the-uks-5g-reversal-spl...
For the whole world, people need to wake up too. just do some research on the Chinese textbooks from elementary school to college, and see what kind of mindsets they are instilling to their population, you will realize this is a monster.
Hong Kong and people like Mr. Lai has always done business in China and there's nothing reprehensible about that, nor is it reprehensible for any other business to legally carry on it's business in the same way. This is about individual freedom, free speech and political liberties, of which trade is one and criticising others for exercising their freedoms is the antithesis of that. Mr Lai made his fortune exercising those freedoms and I very much doubt he would say doing so now is in any way wrong. The way to fight this is by arguing and fighting for freedoms, not against them.
Why is it moral for Jimmy Lai – who was born there, grew up there, and lives there – to do business there? Are his only moral choices to be unemployed or emigrate? He needs to be economically active somewhere and that’s his home.
You don’t have to have a "partisan double standard" or bias against Apple to see the clear difference between a corporation expanding to a foreign territory and a local working in his home country.
Business that especially benefits the Chinese government in particular, or that supports their oppressive activities, sure I can see that. I think Google took a principled moral stance in refusing to provide search services in China when it was clear those services would have to enable surveillance. I don't think they did anything wrong having their Pixel phones manufactured in China.
For context my wife in mainland Chinese, though now a British citizen, we go there regularly and have family there. I spend money in China, and don't think there's anything wrong with myself, businesses, or 'corporations' doing so either whatever we think of the CCP. So this sort of selective virtue posturing really rubs me up the wrong way.
One of these is an economic necessity and one is not. People generally don’t have a choice but to participate in their local economy. Apple has a choice to participate in the Chinese economy. That’s the difference.
> This smacks as a pretty partisan double standard
> I have to wonder what you have against Apple
> this sort of selective virtue posturing
Can you make your point without being insulting and accusatory? It’s possible for people to disagree about this without one side being a bad actor.
Now trade boycotts and restrictions can be justified in some circumstances. I’m not a fundamentalist, but pushing the responsibility on individuals, and doing so in a blatantly asymmetrical and partisan way to push a clearly unrelated agenda (why Apple in particular, really?) is reprehensible and I make no apology for saying so.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/hardware/the-i-in-...
July 2020.
Now imagine five million Chinese hearing they now have lost their job because Apple "appreciates their voice." (first result for "Apple created jobs in China," I did not verify the number) I'm sure their reaction will be to cry out for democracy.
Meanwhile, Apple will undoubtedly move their operations to one of the many democracies that also have a terrible human rights record.
But it is really disappointing to see all the brands I'm using are feeding this regime. So disappointing.
For the mainland Chinese' perspective, it's just HK people's "privilege" being stripped, HK's special status are gone and just like another average Chinese city so what's the outcry?
> "While China is also an important market for Microsoft, Smith explained that they had to step back from setting up a data center there because of the legal and security issues that it could create for their Chinese users. “You need to know what principles you hold fundamental”, he added."
Also worth noting that it is not always a simple black and white. Yes there are clear examples, but lots of Chinese companies do honest business and don't want to hurt anyone. And what is the dividing line for a potential boycott? Do companies all over the world have to meet US labor standards before you'll buy from them? Do their host governments need to meet a particular definition of liberalism? Can you come up with concrete definitions that don't exclude the US?
You may have all sorts of answers to those questions, and I hope you do your part in voting with your wallet along those moral lines. I point them out only to illustrate that they aren't EASY questions, and certainly aren't easy in the context of big movements like trade deals, when hundreds or thousands of local jobs are at stake.
What's most likely is information erosion, brain washing, espionage and political upheaval caused by CCP actors. Be careful what you write on the internet. You'll see the full wrath of CCP cancel culture like you've never seen before in the year 2050. Also, keep an eye on whichever country you belong to and how its government is not influenced by CCP. It might be a little too late for Australia [1].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/world/australia/politicia...
If the war is going to happen it will happen somewhere close to China, because the reverse isn't possible.
But if you are talking about winning a war that is close to China, against China, you are not in the right mind.
Truth to be told, not even US can afford to total war against China on its own. You need a WW3 to drag everyone into the battle.
Now some basement-dwelling armchair generals want to go to war with the consequences of our own making. If humanity ends in a cloud of fallout, it'll be hard to say we didn't deserve it.
Edit: if your last paragraph was relating to me I never advocated for it. Why is it you can’t say how you see things panning out without people thinking that you want it to be that way? I noticed it a lot on social media these days. For example I dislike Trump but predicted his election and was crucified for it. I was right.
The Uighurs are just a trial run.
The problem with whataboutism is that even if you can establish equivalence (you haven't) it doesn't refute the underlying statement.
Furthermore, in this case it may assume that I have some desire to defend the US's former middle eastern policy. It is not impossible to dislike both in varying degrees.
Although it is illogical, it is an effective way to derail the discussion. I admit that much.
As your comment points out, the current $BOOGEYMAN is probably not as strong as sold. My comment was intended to say that, with hindsight, not only have all the recent @BOOGEYMEN not been existential threats (for the US in particular, let alone "The West" in general), a recent one was even fabricated.
Rumsfeld on looting as a sign of freedom:
> "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime, ... I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures ... [who wouldn't] accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."
Seriously, the clearer we see that boycotts and economic isolation are far more favourable than preserving the Wealth of a Boomer generation the sooner this via War that mentality can fade from Human consciousness.
I'd sooner see all of the boomers have their wealth stripped and lost before even a proxy war take place with drones.
This isn't entirely generational conflict, I have worked with some amazing people who happened to be Boomer aged, but given how collectively calloused they've been to all other generations to support an unsustainable path I want to see a massive correction in their standard of living and quality of Life so they get a wake up call to the true costs what what they have imposed upon the World. More of a rigid confined mental state that has been upheld for so long that they cannot escape it without a real kick to the head. Most of Greta's followers of notoriety are all Boomer Age or older, but seldom actually do anything: Merkle being a prime example of this.
As a millennial, I have it very clear in my mind how Gen Z will likely be the first generation to totally abandon any filial/paternal loyalty left in decision making when they truly understand the gravity of not just the Political/Economic damage (which has always been transient) that they are gong to inherit the dire Environmental situation.
I hope we see a massive diaspora of Humans to rural under populated places as a result, and given my conversations with many who seem disillusioned with their prospects in both the East and West that seems to be already happening; many HKers are fleeing to Taiwan or the UK, and others have been in Canada for some time but they're also moving to Australia, and the US.
These are highly skilled, highly educated migrants with Western values that are being competed for. Taiwan is offering them a form of UBI for those that arrive from HK die to political reasons, and the UK is making lots of accommodations for BN(O) passport holders.
This is what disruption looks like, its never pretty and almost always pretty damn messy, but I'm glad we're here as the CCP has to be stopped.
I think that war is much more likely than a peaceful transition to a China-centric world.
I also don't think that war will be a "hot" conflict. China's economy would collapse if the developed world abandoned it.
What will continue is the "cold wars" being waged right now through the internet. Russia, China, and Iran are all actively trying to destabilize the US. All have had some success, with Russia seemingly having the most success (although the relevant intelligence briefings are still classified for now).
There's no reason for countries successfully waging digital wars (with no casualties or loss of business) to suddenly start firing missiles in a world of mutually-assured destruction.
The color of your skin has bought you a lot. When you were a kid, my parents were making a dollar a day. When your parents were kids, my grandparents were facing famine. Now, finally, for the first time in all of modern history, a large group of non-white people has escaped crushing poverty. They're not rich by any means. You'd still be richer than 99.9% of your neighbors if you moved to China, and you'd still be generally worshipped for your skin color, but at the very fucking least Chinese people are no longer starving to death by the millions.
You look at this tiny measure of progress and hope, and you declare it repulsive. You think if you're no longer standing far on top of everybody else, if you sink to the 90th percentile of privilege from the 99th, you'll become a "second class human", and that possibility makes war "inevitable".
The main thing I have learned from a year of commenting on HN is that many very comfortable people here who think just like you, and it is deeply disappointing.
communist tactics haven’t changed
That isn't what the person you're responding to said at all. They were observing the discrimination against those who are not Han in China and extrapolating that it would apply to them as well in a China-centric world.
They don't want to be discriminated against. That's all that's being said. (Well also they're saying that they appreciate freedom of speech and some other stuff that China seems to be diametrically opposed to, but you didn't respond to that so I guess it's not relevant to my comment.)
That attitude is typical, and precisely why people in China find the West so unconvincing.
That's a baseless claim not related to the original comment. Why are you making things up and trying to derail productive discussion like this?
I read the original comment as being against it but wondering if it's an inevitable outcome. That's a very reasonable thing to want to discuss - many of the respondents here (including myself) appear not to share the view that it's inevitable.
> I pointed out rationally and straightforwardly
You mean the part where you literally made things up about what the other party thought?
As I previously pointed out, that is absolutely not what was said. Please stop making things up.
Concern was expressed about the racism against those who are not Han which currently exists in China. The original commenter professed a fear of what that would look like for outsiders in a China-centric world.
You appear (IMO) to be trying to distract from the fact that there is racism within China today. (As there is, of course, in many other places to varying extents - including but certainly not limited to the US.)
Yes, and for the third time now: my point is that the absolute worst-case scenario for the original commenter is still miles better than what 90% of the world (i.e. everybody non-white) faces today.
The worst-case scenario in OP's book is that China joins the ranks of first world countries, which then go from being 100% white to 90%. He'd still be rich, and he'd still be comfortable, but he'd have to share first world status with others. And for some reason, that's unacceptable.
Worst case, he might miss out on one business deal because it was struck in Mandarin, which is an absolutely tiny reflection of the loss of opportunity faced today by everybody who doesn't know English. And that in turn is tiny compared to the reality that 100 million people died of starvation in the 20th century. Famine, disease, and poverty are global moral catastrophes of unimaginable scale. And OP just thinks a country managing to stop them for its citizens gives him the creeps.
So we shouldn't worry about something bad because worse has happened before?
> The worst-case scenario in OP's book is that China joins the ranks of first world countries, which then go from being 100% white to 90%.
You're making things up again. OP described living in a China-centric world, not one of equals. (Also your population statistics are _way_ off. 100% to 90%? The population of China is comparable to every other western country combined.)
> Worst case, he might miss out on one business deal because it was struck in Mandarin
Worst case, he might be actively discriminated against and passed over because in spite of investing considerable time in mastering Mandarin he's not Han.
Yes, but there's no evidence to suggest this will be the case. The average yearly income in China is not even half what a minimum wage worker gets in the US! And yet OP thinks China will promptly take over the world. That's yellow peril at work.
Agreed, at least to the extent that I don't see a way to meaningfully predict that sort of outcome one way or the other.
> And yet OP thinks China will promptly take over the world. That's yellow peril at work.
On the contrary, that's just someone whose looked at recent economic trends and population statistics extrapolating from them intuitively.
Which is particularly ironic since it appears to have been pointing out the racism that currently exists within China that started all this.
Classic siege mentality. First assume OP is white and rich, then accuse the West hindering China from getting powerful while OP is focusing on human rights and equity. To be frank your argument is no better than common cliches from Wumao and Xiaofenhong.
I didn't read that in the above comment at all.
I'm pretty sure skin colour isn't related to poverty, maybe you can blame chairman Mao for that.
> this tiny measure of progress and hope
So you suggest all the bad things happened to Uyghurs and Han people can be justified with economic growth? That's just a lame argument used by the CCP all the time.
https://www.businessinsider.com/nba-china-feud-timeline-dary...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzchung_controversy
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/business/taiwan-american-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/fashion/china-donatella-v...
https://omaha.com/columnists/hansen/hansen-omaha-man-liked-a...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/world/asia/abominable-vie...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-11-01/china-say...
Here's the thing: pieces of entertainment are also pulled if they offend American sensibilities. In fact, American sensibilities have exclusively determined what is acceptable in big-budget entertainment for at least half a century. Crap like the Blitzchung affair just reflects this balance shifting to 99% America, 1% China.
Yes, China has the power to cancel one thing from time to time, but America constantly has the power to cancel everything. If a big-budget production isn't appealing to an American audience, it just doesn't get made, period. For example, when's the last time you saw a Chinese protagonist in a major film? Or even a single Chinese person who wasn't portrayed as a villain, a dope, or a sex toy?
In a world with equitable global development, influence would be proportional to population. America would have a 5% say, China 20%, Africa 20%, India 25%, and so on. So I'm not worried about the balance shifting towards that.
I think we can fight for more Chinese roles in films, politicians, scientists, CEOs, more representation in all fields. However, I don't see how your argument about it being okay to "cancel" because China is just cancelling 1% and America is 99%.
I'd also not prefer to live in a CCP-centric world where Chinese people are not allowed to tell the truth without fear.[1][2]
We should call out Guantanamo Bay as well as the Xinjiang re-education camps, Liu Xiaobo, not allowing Hong Kong elections. It doesn't make either right because of the existence of the other. However, I have no fear of speaking publicly about Guantanamo Bay and then traveling to the US. But I have to make sure I remove all my private chat messages if I ever mentioned about the Xinjiang camps. That's the CCP-centric world that I see.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen_Qiushi#February_2020_disa...
[2]https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074622/coro...
I think you're too optimistic. If you'd made similar comments during the Red Scare, you would have ended up like Qian Xuesen, the Chinese-American who devoted the best years of his life to developing American technology, but who ended up fired and placed under house arrest for years for his ethnicity. This process of arbitrary arrest of Chinese people has never stopped -- and in recent years it has dramatically accelerated. Obviously, it doesn't make the HN front page. Nobody cares.
Before I joined HN I was quite naive, but now I understand that many Americans are anticipating a second Red Scare with glee, and some even long for World War III. Representation in films and politics and so on is a nice wish, but it will obviously be impossible under those conditions. As will many other things.
Your point is exactly why we need to be afraid of any government's suppression of free speech. We need to support people like Jimmy Lai so the likes United States and the CCP cannot suppress the voice of good people. We need to be fearful of any government arresting anyone advocating for freedom. Regardless of your government, the goal is to support free speech and the freedom of the press.
The average per capita income in China is lower than countries like Costa Rica or Venezuela. It's less than half of what a minimum wage worker gets in the US. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people still die in China due to preventable diseases like tuberculosis and hepatitis. About half the children in the countryside are malnourished, to a degree that would not be conceivable for anybody in the US. This is the actual situation China is facing, and it's still dramatically better than many countries that were similarly poor decades ago.
In response to this, you and HN in general immediately react with fears of imminent Chinese world domination. Once again I ask you: why does the prospect of a few non-white people not starving to death make you so afraid? Why is this so alarming, so abnormal? I encourage you to spend at least a moment thinking about it.
I would argue that a democratic China would be further along in its development than it currently is. A democratic China would have not have had its development retarded by a megalomaniacal madman whose decisions led to the deaths of dozens of millions of souls. Were those deaths justified in the pursuit of growth and development?
>I do not want to lose business and professional opportunities because I am not Han.
I don't think this will be as big of a problem as you expect it to be. Do you have any western Han friends who do business in China? Being Han isn't going to stop others from trying to screw you over, even if you aren't Western.
If you're actually worried, then your main concern should be learning Mandarin.
I think only a few demographics will experience the racism that you fear.
Also keep in mind that China is making way more enemies than friends these days, so there is no way the world is going to be China-centric to the extent that you're worried about.
We see no evidence for that. In fact, that's part of their current propaganda as well, if you read their news.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/opinion/hong-kong-china-n...
“Do My Tweets Really Threaten China’s National Security?“
Think of a US media tycoon who went to China to meet with the Secretary of State, used the media to incite riots in his country, appeared on the streets of protest, and publicly called on China to intervene in the United States. What are the consequences of this?
Please read more media from a different standpoint and think about this event in another way.
Because of the Chinese culture of "national unity", intervention in Hong Kong is like intervention in China.
I don’t think the analogy of Guam is appropriate. As a strategic priority, Guam is occupied by many countries. Now as a US military base, residents have no right to vote.
Hong Kong belonged to China a long time ago. The British captured him through war in 1842 and returned it to China in 1997. Hong Kong currently retains its own administrative system and will fully integrate into China in the future.
I am not very familiar with the history of the United States, and I cannot offer a better analogy. If the Guam helps to understand the situation, I have no objection. After all, what I want to say is what Jimmy Lai did.
That would be a wonderful thing if my government were currently persecuting 1 million people solely based on their religious and cultural identity. The consequences would be carried by hope.
Chinese people who know technology can read these reports, and I can say that most of them will not believe them. Because the CCP has always promoted that 56 ethnic groups are one family. If these things happen, they will spread locally and cause riots. Note that media control has never completely prevented the spread of the incident, only weakened.
Because Xinjiang has suffered terrorist attacks, his security measures are higher than other provinces. For example, citizens have to show their ID cards to enter the supermarket, but this is the same for everyone.
About the skills training school, I once had doubts about what facility it is. After watching the BBC interview, I relieved my doubts, because even if they were looking for it with a magnifying glass, the scariest place was just the bathroom with the lights off. [1] If officials prevent them from viewing anything, they will put it on the show.
In summary, I do not believe that the CCP persecutes Uyghurs. I think the media played a big role in our differences of opinion. So I suggest watching more media with different standpoint. For example, I often watch English media, but Westerners rarely read Chinese media. Fortunately, with Google Translate, language should no longer be a problem.
[1] https://medium.com/@sunfeiyang/breaking-down-the-bbcs-visit-...
But what if you don't want to be in the family? In the west we have that freedom to be different.
We also have the freedom to say the equivalent of Bush did 9/11 : on June 4 1989 the CCP massacred thousands.
Now the point of one big family is that the stability of the family, keeping everything going together peacefully means you don't rock the boat, you have to not speak out about how your uncle is a criminal. One big family ensures family members voluntarily censor themselves and consider those saying June 1989 Tianamen Square as literal existential threats to the stability of the family. Where in the west we can say Trump is part of a global conspiracy to X,y,z in China to do the same means attacking the very identity and stability of your own person, your bio family, your town and your nation. The story that is believed is that this stability was won through so much bloodshed. Anything must be done to stop rocking the boat. Chinese people really cannot be free as they don't know what it is. They see HK as an alcoholic daughter that needs to be treated to get well and join the rest of the family. Same with the Muslims. They are both different and in China difference is a fundamental threat.
It's fascinating.
Diversity is hard to swallow, given our tribalistic nature, but we have no choice but to foster and protect it, now that we're hyper globalised.
China's action to standardise and promote monoculture is a big failure that will eventually collapse in the future. It's just a question of when.
Xinjiang has more mosques than the whole United States. It's hypocritical to call China anti-muslim. At least we don't forbid muslims to enter our country. And we haven't ever bombarded their homelands.
What we're doing to the Uygurs is to help them earn more and lead a better life. Many Uygurs migrated to other provinces and opened up noodle shops. Those back at home may get along with the old ways, but the old ways don't have computers or other modernized tools and entertainments. And we want to help them understand why it is good to treat their women equally, and why it is good to live peacefully with atheists.
You think you have freedom because you know where the bottom line is. Imagine you publish a detailed crime plan. How long will the FBI come to your door?
Those in China see this and are horrified. To them, freedom and instability equal bloodshed and violence. Any rights should be given up to ensure the safety of one's family. If you have no freedom as a child you will be happier as your mother and father will look over you. teenage rebellion is also not encouraged culturally for example.
It's interesting to understand the CCP mind set. It explains the almost non sensical criticism of "freedoms" often heard. As most westerner don't understand China, similarly most mainland Chinese don't understand the west.
It also comes with great cost.
I can understand the need of diversity in a country, diversity of races, opinions, religions, etc. We want diversity too, so long as it is within our country. If by being Muslim means you want out of the country, is it for or against diversity on your part?
His Twitter account would briefly get more clicks than Trump's, and a swarm of congress-critters would fight each other for the privilege of having him hauled in front of their panel for a grueling, multi-hour session of righteous posturing, all televised live. Then the late night shows would create condensed, only slightly exaggerated but far more entertaining versions of their performance. By day four, everybody would have moved on to the next outrage du jour.
You’re the one who needs to read more and get a new perspective - all you are doing is repeating the very common, very boring mainstream Chinese opinion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jdp2JviTDA
Further, it’s impossible for anything to be more vague than the HK national security law - there must be some level of maximum vagueness and China has achieved it with this law.
Edit: I see you’ve linked Nathan Rich - what a horrible source. Why don’t you link the actual law you’re talking about?
> 18 U.S. Code § 2385.Advocating overthrow of Government https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385
In fact, China has learned a lot from the United States. Before the Hong Kong National Security Law was released, some people joked that it would be better to copy the laws of the United States directly, so that many disputes can be avoided.
I think no one wants his rights to be restricted until his right to life is threatened. If a group of people say they will destroy everything until the government compromises, then the streets are destroyed, the unemployment rate rises, and relatives hate each other. Someone will accept that all this must be legally bound.
In the US, the Supreme Court balances that law against our constitutional rights, rendering it almost unenforceable. In fact, the way that law is applied is very specific, not vague at all.
Please read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States
Nathan Rich and people like him may be fun for you to watch because they confirm your worldview and reinforce your biases, but I suggest you read some real legal scholars if you're interested in actually educating yourself.
Edit: Also, getting back to the origin of this thread, nothing in US law prohibits what Jimmy Lai did. And nothing prohibited it when he did it in Hong Kong. Even besides how disgusting this law is, applying it retroactively is truly appalling.
Back to Hong Kong, the Hong Kong National Security Law is not retroactive:
> Article 39 This Law shall apply to acts committed after its entry into force for the purpose of conviction and imposition of punishment.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page%3AHong_Kong_National_Sec...
The police found evidence that he violated the law after the National Security Act was released, so they arrested him. I wait for the Hong Kong police to release more information.
YouTuber is just one of my information channels, and I also go to the websites or forums of protesters.
The President has emergency powers in existing law to regulate foreign trade in this general way, for the purpose of rapidly responding to action by hostile foreign nations executed through trade including through notionally private firms.
Trump hasn't banned TikTok yet, and the powers he is trying to use for that were given to him by Congress. It hasn't gone through courts yet, though, so you need to read more about it before making claims. This seems to be a pattern with you.
They claim it is not retroactive - but I highly doubt it. And you yourself said he was being punished for things that happened before it was in place.
Are you sure you aren't? Let's see those comments criticizing your country.
> And the US doing something wrong doesn’t excuse what China is doing to a formerly free society.
Why doesn't it, when the US is the "leader of the free world", as you like to call yourselves? Seems to me you are holding China to a higher standard than the US. Why is that?
I’m going to very briefly reply to your second point, because I don’t think you’re discussing in good faith. Whether or not the US does something wrong is irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of China’s actions, because I don’t think the US is some sort of Platonic ideal of a perfect state. My thought process is not: US good, China different, therefore bad.
Maybe the new national security law of HK is less than the Platonic ideal of a perfect law. Is it also fair to say that you think the National Security Law of the US is bad too? Since chloerei stated that it "is broader and stricter than China" and you didn't refute it. Can you elaborate on that? Since it's your own country and you should be much better informed to comment on that than on the HK law.
So there is a similar law in the US, even though it's not named "National Security Law". And you can be prosecuted under that law.
How different is it really, from the situation in HK and the national security law?
Do you think that will happen in Hong Kong? The Hong Kong law is also far broader and more vague.
Look, I don’t think I’ll be replying to you further. You’re not trying to actually learn anything, you’re extremely disingenuous, and you don’t raise any interesting points, or really any coherent argument at all. If you want to learn more about the difference between China’s legal system, or the neutered Hong Kong legal system, and the US, do it on your own. I’m not going to hold your hand anymore.
In the west, we use freedoms of speech to balance the boat from one side to the other. Freedom of speech is the mechanism for stability. Freedom of speech is primarily how something is told they are wrong.
Freedoms are also why I can write: Bush destroyed the twin towers on 9 11 and killed thousands but you cannot say the CCP killed thousands on June 1989 in tiannamen square. Both events in history before many users here were even born. It's not only that it's illegal for you but censorship ensures that the boat is stable and the sea is calm. for Chinese, censorship is stability, freedom is the threat. You literally, emotionally, don't want to say those things, and you don't feel bad about it. Most westerners don't understand this. Freedom and difference to China means bloodshed and instability.
there are of course limits to freedom of speech in the west, direct calls to violence are out for example.
However encouraging protests is not encouraging violence even if the protests become violent riots later. In China protests are illegal by default because they might upset the boat potentially.
Under this negative example, people in China who yearn for the American system are already ashamed to speak up. I even suspect that the purpose of Hong Kong’s opposition parties is to prevent democratization in China.
The demonstrators have a slogan "Non Separation", which means that peaceful demonstrations and violent demonstrations are not separated. They are all part of the entire movement. Peaceful demonstrators were hijacked by violent demonstrators.
It’s not the purpose of the opposition to prevent democratization, that’s silly. The people were not “incited to riot”, they did their best to make their voices heard. But China didn’t actually want to hear their voices. And you’ve completely fallen for the propaganda. You haven’t tried to really empathize with the people losing their freedoms. You don’t understand what a nightmare it has been for them.
As a Hong Konger, I'm always amused by how much influence the CCP thinks Jimmy Lai / Apple Daily / Next Media wields.
Inciting riots? Really? Can you point to a single Apple Daily article that demonstrates this?
This recent piece from an influential Beijing professor Jiang Shigong[1] of "Xi Jinping Thought" fame, openly frames and justifies China seizing control as leader of the global empire, "Empire and World Order"[2]
[The current state of world empire] faces three great unsolvable problems: the ever-increasing inequality created by the liberal economy; state failure, political decline, and ineffective governance caused by political liberalism; and decadence and nihilism created by cultural liberalism. In the face of these difficulties, even the United States has pulled back in terms of worldwide military strategy, which means that world empire 1.0 is currently facing a great crisis, and that revolts, resistance, and revolution from within the empire are unravelling the system. ...
We might conclude that we are living in an age of chaos, conflict, and massive change in which world empire 1.0 is in decline and trending toward collapse, while we are as yet unable to imagine world empire 2.0. Yet we must recognize that change in the form of empire is a long historical process. The several thousand years of the history of mankind have witnessed only three great changes in imperial form, and each of these changes has been accompanied by great conflicts and chaos. At the same time, we cannot deny that these ages of historical transition have also created the opportunity for each civilization to construct world empire 2.0. The civilization that is able to provide genuine solutions to the three great problems facing world empire 1.0 will also provide the blueprint for world empire 2.0. As a great world power that must look beyond its own borders, China must reflect on her own future, for her important mission is not only to revive her traditional culture. China must also patiently absorb the skills and achievements of humanity as a whole, and especially those employed by Western civilization to construct world empire. Only on this basis can we see the reconstruction of Chinese civilization and the reconstruction of the world order as a mutually re-enforcing whole.
There really is a coherent internal logic to why China can solve the 3 problems identified with the liberal order. A very dystopian logic, in my opinion. But worth some serious thought; where this all is heading.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiang_Shigong
[2] https://www.readingthechinadream.com/jiang-shigong-empire-an...
That the us led world order eventually will collapse due to global inequality is pretty standard thought in communist thinking.
And of course China sees itself as a more just society with basis in the worker rather than the capital holder.
In the past few decades, the global wealth inequality has decreased significantly (under the leadership of the "US empire" nevertheless).
China isn't communist, it's just a dictatorship. Very capitalist. Huge inequality as well, growing faster than the West and approaching US wealth inequality. I can't see how there would be less inequality under the rule of the "Chinese empire".
I'm guessing that you are thinking about the number of people that have risen from poverty (lead by China, not US) because I could not find one source that is talking about decreased global wealth inequality. In fact, every single source that I could find on a short notice is talking about the rise of global wealth inequality in the last few decades.
Can you share your sources.
> Global income inequality increased for 2 centuries and is now falling
While I agree that "social authoritarianism" is pretty shitty, I'll take it over "government authoritarianism" any day of the week (mind you, we're commenting on a story about someone being jailed for speech, not just fired).
As an old Chinese man said, "love, ideals, loyalty, none of that matters anymore once your food is taken away." You _will_ report your family as traitors if that's what is standing between you and starvation.
We must never excuse the horrors going on in China, and we must always recognize that civil unrest is always the symptom, never the disease.
The other critics are themselves also progressives, and they do voice their concerns, eg Steven Pinker.
I'm trying to self reflect a lot here. Forgive my provoking thoughts.
Looking at even the US itself crumbles in today's misinformation world. I now have doubts in Democracy like Socrates did. If not for HK, Taiwan, and Uyghur Muslims, I'd consider Xi's dictatorship a good modern day role dictatorship.
What are the alternatives? Democracy has failed us in today's increasingly complex society, with free flow of misinformation everywhere. Education doesn't fix the problem. Critical thinking is hard, thinking is hard. Free education and free information doesn't fix the problem because people believe what they want to believe.
As long as a country has stability and peace and the prosperity of its citizens, then shouldn't it be in that country's best interest to crush any opposition by any means necessary, including committing actions that are provoking UN or violating Geneva Convention left and right. Won't good (from the perspective of its citizens) dictatorship is better than crumbling Democracy?
But power corrupts. Eventually it will. And the dictators will be overthrown, pulling the pendulum in the other direction.
In what way is it good?
It also does things like this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/magazine/the-lonely-crusa...
and this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/magazine/the-lonely-crusa... (on a related note, here's a video of what the Chinese police could do to you if you talk smack about them on WeChat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiMLVYK4hEc)
> What are the alternatives? Democracy has failed us in today's increasingly complex society, with free flow of misinformation everywhere. Education doesn't fix the problem. Critical thinking is hard, thinking is hard. Free education and free information doesn't fix the problem because people believe what they want to believe.
> As long as a country has stability and peace and the prosperity of its citizens, then shouldn't it be in that country's best interest to crush any opposition by any means necessary, including committing actions that are provoking UN or violating Geneva Convention left and right. Won't good (from the perspective of its citizens) dictatorship is better than crumbling Democracy?
If you're curious why you're downvoted, it was probably because of this "argument." You're saying democracy has failed and list some problems. Then, because of those problems, you appear to advocate for a rather nasty dictatorship, where those very same problems you just complained about would be worse.
The thing with China is, it is insanely big. How to govern this big country effectively if not dictatorship?
I previously tried to compare Japan and SK to China. But I realized that their culture is drastically different, and SK and Japan is also a much smaller country.
What? Xi took power in 2012, long after the lifting happened.
> The thing with China is, it is insanely big. How to govern this big country effectively if not dictatorship?
If it's too big to govern except through ruthless means, then maybe that means it's just too big, period. There's no moral imperative that says empires have to remain whole through any means necessary.
No, CCP is the entity people often attribute China's economic rise to. And even that is not completely correct; Deng opened up the market a bit, and the Chinese people themselves took the opportunity to rebuild the economy from the ruins of central planning.
> How to govern this big country effectively if not dictatorship?
You can say that about groups of any size. It is often said a benevolent dictator is the most efficient and effective way to run a group: see Linux for an example.
But this only works if everyone has shared goals and shared values. What if people have different opinions? Hint: look at how much China spends on "stability maintenance" (维稳) each year: it's bigger than their military budget.
China uses HK to access world markets, to launder their money etc. - ending that ability would really hurt them a lot.
World nations have no qualms investing in HK entities, for PRC entities it's just a world of confusion.
HK is PRC so no more special privileges.
On the contrary.
https://imgur.com/gallery/WFl43ZX
The world is benefiting from HK more than China.
HK is how PRC accesses the world's financial markets, we need to shut that off and apply the same rules to HK companies as we do PRC.
History repeats itself. Just 30 years ago the Soviet Union was dissolved. If you study this dissolution process, you see that demonstrations and the ambition to sovereignty was nothing new in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, but in comparison to the 50s, 60s and 70s, Gorbachev did not use military force to prevent countries from splitting off.
If China lets HK go independent, there is a chance of a chain reaction: Guangdong, Xinjiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia.. just to name a few. This would mean to total collapse of the PRC.
But in comparison to the USSR, China's economy is highly intertwined with the global economy.
I would even go that far and say that a successful HK independence movement could have the chance to lead to a total collapse of the global economy on a scale that makes this Corona recession look like a Kindergarden.
Don't get me wrong. I LOVE HK, I lived and worked there. I have also lived and worked in Mainland China. It is sad to see that HK will likely become just a random Chinese city and lose its uniqueness. I just wished that there would be a mutual process of this unification and China would move slower towards it, while HK would accept that the China of 2047 will look different from China today.
But HKers aren't even asking for full independence. They want to retain the democracy and freedom they've had so far.
And the parallels with Soviet Union's collapse is debatable. At that point Soviet Union was on the brink of economic disaster, while China is at the height of their military and economic power.
China wanted HK to be special and successful, to use it as a showcase for the 'one country two systems' model. Now China just want to not lose HK. Huge change in thinking.
> In 1946, shortly after the war, critical voices were raised against colonialism. Governor Sir Mark Young proposed a 48-member Municipal Council with significant competence to govern, one-third elected by non-Chinese, one third by Chinese institutions and one-third by Chinese individuals, known as the "Young Plan", believing that, "to counter the Chinese government's determination to recover Hong Kong, it was necessary to give local inhabitants a greater stake in the territory by widening the political franchise to include them."[9] The reform failed because of much resistance from expatriate companies, a new conservative and mistrustful governor, and London's fears of Hong Kong becoming a political battleground between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China (CPC).
You miss out the last part, the British governor would actually listen to the people.
HK had almost 95% of what defines as democracy, freedom of assembly and speech, inclusiveness and equality, membership, consent, right to life and minority rights. It is only missing some part of voting.
PRC has total control over mainland China. There is 0 risk of fragmentation.
HK is a separate entity in every sense, so is Taiwan.
USSR collapsed because its economic and political system crumbled from the inside, enabling Poland et. al. to get out from under their thumb, which is what they always wanted to do.
If China had economic turmoil, mainland would stay intact in one way or another.
If the CCP were to collapse, it'd be from the inside. Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan always wanted independence. It's difficult enough to unify a small group so just imagine with 1.4 billion people.
Taiwan is independent.
Control in China is tenuous on some level - if the CCP fails, it might be total chaos.
Tibet however, doesn't have any power. They are aboriginals crushed under the weight of Han Imperialism. I mean, if China was in economic turmoil for a decade, and Han leadership was weak, or had the self awareness to allow for some autonomy, and there was 'world pressure on them' - possibly Tibet could make a break.
But it's not like Poland under USSR.
Just like every ruler of China in history, whoever gets 'some control' will want 'all of it' and mainland would probably be easy to unite, due to historical facts.
So barring serious collapse and revolution, it looks like HK is just PRC and that's that, and Taiwan will probably remain independent so long as US and EU exist in any material form.
But who can predict the future.
Secondly, if we are looking at history, why would we look at USSR instead of the history of China? There is never a regime change until a civil war broke out, and there is always blood involved.
Now China has certainly been cooking the hell out of the books but given the other sides of transactions with the outside world we have an idea of the of the real as quite large.
I'm not aware of any precedents to date, but a rigorous scientific record of this kind would be extremely valuable as a reference proof against future gaslighting and dubious arguments.
The process is already under way, anecdotally some normally outgoing folks (Hongkongers and involved) are reluctant to post this on social media or discuss it with you unless they trust the channel.
It doesn't matter whether you personally think oppressing human freedom is terrible or not—your work will not be any less useful. Its results may even challenge your own subjective opinion on the matter.
Why do you believe this? It is very much not true. If you wanted to study, for instance, how societies collapse, you don't need to be impartial about the notion of societal collapse. If you wanted to study war, you don't need to be impartial to war.
The fact that science reveals truth even though it can start with partiality is why the scientific method is the gold standard.
Some here even wanted to start a war with China in the name of human rights. Remember crusades in the name of Christian?
Most people here don't know or don't care if HK was a democracy under UK, and don't care if there is a law to guard the arrest of Jimmy Lai and if ordinary HK people are sick of Ted Cruz etc coming to HK to fan up fire when HK was burning, whom and also other US politicians Jimmy Lai has met with.
Edit:
For those who don't know, Ted Cruz came over to HK to show his support in Oct. 20019 when HK was burning. And the most despicable was he claimed no riots in HK. That was the moment HK's fate was sealed.
https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4714
https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3032751/ted-cru...
HK's political movements have no leadership or strategy at all. This kind of acts would turn all Mainland people against them. And CCP would feel empowered to do what ever.
My point is the situation in HK is much complicated than beautiful democracy vs evil CCP. It's much more than ideology.
Do you now understand why those riots were important ? Because the National Security laws are being used to crackdown on dissent exactly as the HK protestors predicted.
This arrest is actually an opportunity to test if the new security law has some merits. Jimmy Lai has the resource to defend himself in court. Let's wait for it to unfold.
The wealthiest people on the planet who actually influence what governments do prioritize wealth accumulation above nationalism presently. If they didn’t every nation wouldn’t be so in bed with each other at this point.
The aggression is a display of power and generate a ‘feeling’ of superiority to keep a population content.
There won’t be a war. We’ll only see large scale wars again when our environment collapses and wealth extraction is no longer the number one priority. Having food, water, and other natural resources that were once plenty go scarce will cause war.
Perhaps this will never happen but I’m assuming it will. The wealth extraction phase will continue to abuse our planet at peak efficiency until Earth can no longer handle it. Then you will have war.
China has basically given up any semblance of autonomy for Hong Kong. It's clear who runs the show here. Carrie Lam is universally despised (her approval ratings make Trump look like Mother Theresa). Nobody respects authority anymore. It's clear in daily life.
Hundreds of thousands of HKers have been migrating out of China for decades.
I'm unclear why people expected HK to ever be autonomous permanently?
No one did, but the treaty said it would semi-autonomous for 50 years. These actions are 27 years early, so they didn't even keep their end of the deal for half the time they promised.
Also, a lot can happen in three decades, and one could have held out hope that the PRC could have undergone some kind of liberal reforms before the treaty expired.
There is historical evidence that suggests that liberal values flourish better with prosperity, just as environmental and anti-pollution awareness increases once people rise above subsistence.
I run an obfs4 Tor bridge on an old Linux Mint box that's just sitting around in my home.*
The bare minimum thing that Chinese and any other country's citizens need is information, and freedom of information. This is where tech truly, truly helps.
[*] Yes, they may first need to connect to a working VPN, but that's OK, to really become free they can then connect to a Tor bridge like mine.
If however you mean not being involved with the Tor project in any capacity whatsoever, I really insist that that's the wrong, and a very dangerous anti-freedom philosophy to take.
At some point, we have to take a stand and defend the right to absolute encryption for anybody, no questions asked. Why? Because this is the normal human experience.
Privacy is normal and healthy. Having everything you do recorded and stored by others permanently, is not normal or healthy.
The more you use and promote the use of encryption, privacy and anti-censorship technologies in benign and good contexts like mine, the less it's dismissed as an automatic indicator of crime.
As far as I'm concerned, I consider myself lucky that I have legal freedom of association in my own country so that I can even safely run this Tor bridge. As to the court of public opinion on the social level in my community, all I need to do is explain this important humanitarian use case that I do it for.
https://twitter.com/mrkoot/status/1292358618004828160?s=20
Also promote bitcoin in China. CCP survives on the money it can threaten and coerce out of its popularity. Bitcoin removes people's assets from CCP control
Here is the article https://www.zdnet.com/article/china-is-now-blocking-all-encr...
A sad day for HK. I hope the world does not let him be detained indefinitely, like what has happened to Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo.
Just keep this possibility in mind
As a Chinese living in the US, reading China related news/comments is like watching FOX, or Trump watching CNN. Maybe I am also biased, but that's my feeling.
An average American has no reason to hate on China, but it doesn't mean we can't stand up for the ethnic groups that are being oppressed within China's borders. The congressional testimonies by the Uyghurs refugees is truly terrifying.
Doing business with China literally means you are in support of their government's actions. T-shirts, medical masks, a regular bottle of ketchup, its all made from slave labor in Xinjiang.