Nobody is arguing whether nations should or should not be trying to impose their values on other nations. The issue is, do you really want to stand on the sidelines while a rising nation with no qualms about murdering its own people is touting values counter to freedom and fairness?
Yeah, some very bad things have happened. Not excusing that. But also things have worked out really really well for a lot of countries the US has imposed its will on. Countries it went to war with and could have utterly raped and plundered without resistance or really any objection.
You think China is going to do better? Will it be more fair? The regime in China is willing to hurt anyone who even debates its track record. Will China even allow its failures and excesses to be documented on Wikipedia? Or will it just censor it all, and disappear anyone who complains?
Well... why wouldn't they? China since the time of Deng has been acutely aware of the risk of becoming an imperialist power[1]. Even if they have arguably crossed that line at some points (the South China Sea...), they're clearly attempting to take a markedly alternative path to becoming a superpower.
I think the media tends to portray individuals in the Chinese government as uniquely sinister and amoral, and the assumption is if given the opportunity, they'll commit all the same crimes the West did. But I find this to be quite a cynical view.
The Chinese government has already re-created concentration camps for religious and ethnic minorities. We might stand to benefit by considering if those with cynical views might have, in this case, found a measure of wisdom.
Is it cynical? And is it's path really that different to the one taken by the US? The US didn't project power on a large scale until it became a major economic power and involvement in major military conflict drew there.
There are still Chinese people today who remember the pain of the Cultural Revolution. This is a history that isn't denied & only lightly censored if at all. Yet, they don't begrudge Mao for it. Probably because they realize that without having united as a country, and without having built that industrial base (as painful as that was), the good years they're seeing today would never have happened.
But you and they are calling maoism and dengism "basically the same thing". That's about half a degree from calling communism and capitalism the same thing. With Chinese characteristics for both, of course.
Anybody who knew China would know exactly why I picked 40 years. It's 2 very different governments.
So I get that you'd consider them "the enemy" in both cases but could this be a teachable moment?
How has America typically done when we wade into shit we don't understand, perfectly convinced that we're the good guys?
How has it typically worked out for the 'liberated'?
People are upset that China isn't honoring their agreement and are dismantling the democratic system and free speech HK is enjoying now, these are universal human rights. Rather than China learning from what made HK so prosperous, as they were for a while, the new leadership is heading back towards the old Maoism policies that lead to the massive starvation and famine and lost generation. Any foreigner living in China is treated terribly, can't do basic things, can't become a citizen, and is constantly checked in on or followed by police. They keep all their citizens in a social credit system, they send religious minorities to labor and reeducation camps, harvest organs from them, etc. Not surprising from a country that teaches about and speaks of Hitler in a positive light, you can't really criticize Hitler without criticizing one's own self and past policies. The US at least admits the things it has done that were anything close to that were wrong as they oppose our own values.
To say nothing of Taiwan, an independent country with its own government and system that China still claims is part of their domain, rather than simply accept reality. It has become imperialistically aggressive towards Taiwan and demands airlines and hotels, media, sporting events etc not show the Taiwanese flag, refer to it by its name, or do anything that indicates the reality that exists now, which is that Taiwan is its own separate country and an example of what would have happened if the democracy had taken root in China, where you'd still have free practice of religion and Chinese values, a strong economy, good health care system, free access to information, etc. If you want an example of Chinese imperialism, look no further than Taiwan, the only reason they haven't invaded Taiwan is because they know they can't without serious consequences.
The old wars were at least excused as staving off invading forces that were seeking eliminate democracy. South Korea is its own country now, they have democracy, look at the DPRK versus SK, we were literally fighting evil and SK is better off for it. Same for the other countries. We're pretty crappy at imperialism if that's the goal since none of those countries are part of any kind of empire and we barely have any influence over them. Thankfully Vietnam didn't end up like DPRK and adopted capitalism at least or a much less dictatorial version of communism.
At least in the US, you're allowed to read about the ills of imperialism and criticism of past and current government actions. In China, you can't even compare the leader to a cartoon character without serious consequences. If the government is doing something wrong, you as a citizen wouldn't know about it and wouldn't be allowed to speak publicly about it, much less organize a protest against it.
China has threatened to invade them if they relinquish their claim on the mainland. They view that as effectively declaring independence. Saying that it's the position of the ROC isn't the entire story.
The Taiwanese are hardly unified around those ideals of the ROC, many still see it as an invader even if they can now express those sentiments at the ballot box.
Believe it or not, the average Chinese has a better grasp of their recent history than the average HN reader.
How come nobody cared about 'universal human rights' for HK residents until it was a way to kneecap China? Again, check the record: 95 years of colonialism with less rights than they have now. They got their limited democracy in the last few years of British rule. Thatcher and Reagan never gave a shit.
Watch their hands, not their mouths, that goes for all politicians.
Xi has a lot of problems in general on the rights front, he's moving things in the wrong direction, but we have no leg to stand on regarding HK.
4x longer than the British did, in any case. The CCP hasn't even proposed rolling back HK's limited democracy (so far, 22 years). And they've, so far, killed far fewer protestors than the British did.
As far as the first part.. you know this is living memory, right?
This perspective is the definition of relativism. You think an authoritarian regime who views human rights as “Western rights” is equal to the US? If you’re arguing liberalism has failed, that’s one thing. But let’s not argue that all things are the same.
I wouldn't say I welcome the rise of Chinese hegemony, but I do welcome the rise of a more collaborative world, and that requires middle ground where there hasn't been with US hegemony due to lack of competition:
I know that I can't expect to do business in the US or Europe if I opine on Jewish sovereignty issues
I know that I can't expect to do business in China if I opine on Chinese sovereignty issues
The result isn't that different just because the former is [mostly] private sector ostracizing and the latter is direct sanctioning from the government. It's cognitively negligent for that specific nuance of private sector deplatforming vs public sector sanctioning to be the line in the sand for people's ideology when the result is the same for doing business in a specific region.
Although Chinese rule of law is totally arbitrary, they've been very consistent that discussion of Chinese sovereignty is not covered and this has nothing to do with any ideology or desire that causes you to say anything about it.
I don't expect this to garner consensus, but the parallels are quite clear. Everyone here already censors themselves to fit with American values on things that greatly disturb them.
Yeah, there are consequences for challanging establishment views on certain topics, but nobody is throwing critics such as Noam Chompsky in jail, taking passports away from his family and restricting their movements, or doing the same to those who openly share his views.
And such abuses of power, which have happened without a doubt, are in time recognised and documented as the wrong and shameful excesses they are.
They have freedom of speech codified in law and very many exceptions.
Opining on issues of sovereignty being one big exception. Its an unexpected one to Western audiences, coupled with a non-existent appeals process and no distinction between private and public sector in state-planned system.
So you’ll be deplatformed by private sector - just like if you have non establishment views in countries you respect - and also sanctioned by public sector.
The point is that to them it wouldn’t be viewed as freedom of speech not being upheld. Just like if things you did were ruled “obscene” or “hateful” or imminently harmful in the US: there is an appeals process in US but the courts might not support you. Just add “secession” to the list and maybe itll all make sense?
