
China - kick
https://drewdevault.com/2019/11/20/China.html
======
ilamont
Xi's in a trap. The nationalist fervor that the CCP has whipped up for
decades, coupled with the demonization of the HK protestors by Chinese media
and Xi's 'no compromise' stance, makes it impossible for him to lighten up --
and the protests to de-escalate -- without him seeming weak. The HK
protestors/population at this point are so angry and the radical wing so
large, that they won't willingly de-escalate. Even if Lam leaves the
demonstrations will continue. This sets up the stage for atrocities and more
international condemnation.

Already on the international front, China is in trouble. The pro-China KMT
party in Taiwan may suffer greatly in the next election because of what's
going on in HK now
([https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3037040/tai...](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3037040/taiwan-2020-election-
race-influence-mainland-based-voters-may)), making China's aggressive demands
for forced unification even more unlikely in the medium term. This week, the
U.S. Senate unanimously passed a HK rights bill
([https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-
usa/us-...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-usa/us-
senate-passes-hk-rights-bill-backing-protesters-angers-beijing-idUSKBN1XT2VR))
that, if it becomes law, will put China through an annual review, which will
further erode the Sino-U.S. relationship for years to come. There have been
calls for a boycott of the 2022 Olympics in Beijing which seems fringey now,
but won't be if China sends in the troops.

There's also the internal question. Ordinary people in China are getting
censored news, but some of the raw information about what's going on is
getting through via social media. What does this mean for sentiment in
Cantonese speaking areas of southern China, or for areas of China where
provincial officials are resented for unjust or unfair treatment of citizens?

~~~
Aperocky
Both the west and China omit information when reporting about HK. China
highlights protester violence, the west talk about police. The only difference
is that west is doing it voluntarily.

If you step back and think about it, if this protest were to happen in the US,
with subways burned, shops destroyed, road blocked, for 6 months. What is
going to happen? Compare this hypothetical scenario with what happened in Hong
Kong.

Where’s the gap? In 2019 we’ve been accustomed to export thinking to other
people and import outrage from the cheapest source. And it doesn’t take a
dictatorial government to push a narrative.

~~~
perennate
In the US I can read any English source, both ones from China and ones from
US/UK media. I read that the CCP imprisoned approximately one million Uighurs
in concentration camps in Xinjiang, where they are being held indefinitely
without due process, and there are reports of physical torture (waterboarding
and tiger chair), rape, and occasional killings. I also read from CCP's point
of view that this started because there were some terrorist knife attacks in
2014. So I can get both sides' point of views. But after reading both sides,
my conclusion is that even if 10,000 people are guilty it does not justify a
Holocaust-scale genocide of one million Uighurs, where the overwhelming
majority are innocent and did not participate or condone the terrorists. There
is no difference between the logic of those perpetrating the genocide in
Xinjiang and the logic of Hitler during WWII.

~~~
Aperocky
You’re right and entirely sideway to my point, which is that narrative pushing
are not just from one side alone.

~~~
perennate
Let's consider a hypothetical scenario similar to the one you put forward
then. Suppose the US government conducts mass imprisonment of a certain
population in concentration camps, like CCP is doing to Uighurs in Xinjiang.

Well, it's not hypothetical, we already did it during WWII to Americans of
Japanese ethnicity. And newspapers across the US spoke up against this
atrocity [1]. Contrast that with China where the newspapers are forced to push
the government's narrative, and invariably focus on the terrorism in 2014 that
sparked the CCP's disproportional response rather than the barbaric violence
perpetrated by the CCP.

The US government has formally apologized for the atrocities in the
concentration camps where Japanese-Americans were held, and paid reparations
($42K per camp survivor in current USD). We vowed never to do something so
horrible again. But in 2019 China is still playing with mass forced
incarceration, and they even have the gall to call it a model for combating
violence that other countries should follow. The CCP has replaced the Japanese
empire in abusing their own population (but I think some in China are racist
and view Uighurs as not part of the Chinese people, just like how Nazi Germany
viewed the Jewish people, and how some in US during WW2 viewed Japanese-
Americans).

[1] [https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/11/protests-against-
in...](https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/11/protests-against-internment-
camps-during-world-war-ii.html)

~~~
DarthGhandi
> Suppose the US government conducts mass imprisonment of a certain population

I'd argue that's not hypothetical at all, even with Xinjiang the US has by far
the highest rate of imprisonment on the planet both of adults and children.

Most are black. Vast majority are not violent crimes.

It's entirely out of step with the rest of the developed world.

~~~
tw04
Ah, yes. Because someone convicted of a crime going to jail is the same thing
as someone being sent to a camp due to their religion. Equating the issues in
the US justice system to concentration camps is ridiculous.

~~~
DarthGhandi
Ah yes, my mistake, you only lock up convicted criminals, let's review that
claim for a moment. Here's a visual:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/uKLej0KwcfGN583uqvyfQ...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/uKLej0KwcfGN583uqvyfQN591-k=/767x0/smart/arc-
anglerfish-washpost-prod-
washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/YRMTT4ITBY5V5NJS2JC6NPSS54.png)

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics

I've noticed a massive apathy amongst Chinese towards Xinjiang, the vast
majority don't care and think they deserve it. Perhaps you have a lot more in
common than you think.

Both countries have horrendous records and many from there feel not the
slightest bit of shame about it.

~~~
dailiangren
I grew up in Jiangsu province of China. I heard some very nice stories about
people in Xinjiang from my neighbours who had worked in Xinjiang for some
time. I also heard some very bad stories about certain group of people from
Xinjiang. It's hard to agree with you that 'a massive apathy amongst Chinese
towards Xinjiang' \--- as an ordinary Chinese, I want a peaceful country, and
no terrorists, and I love diversity.

------
mc32
>”It’s economically productive for the 1% to maintain a trade relationship
with China. The financial incentives don’t help any Americans, and in fact,
most of us are hurt by this relationship...”

So true, since its inception with GHW, its execution and realization through
Clinton and then once fully engaged the timid, supplicant responses from GW
and BO, China has contributed to the stagnation of the blue collar worker on
America with the full complicity of Democrats, Republicans and most of
Industry and even unions who didn’t oppose their cozy politicians. They all
only saw starry dollar signs...

That’s where we are now. People have had enough. That’s why they put up with
the guy no one likes because he’s willing to sever that codependent
relationship.

Now, if you ask any pol running for the nomination who the greatest threat to
America is... it’s not going to be China...

~~~
kick
The guy "no one likes" isn't innocent of China-worship. Guiltier than most. On
Jinping: "He is a great leader who very much has the respect of his people. He
is also a good man in a 'tough business.'"

Misrepresenting him as "willing to sever that codependent relationship" is
harmful. He's just as complicit if not more than most politicians, and most of
his actions involving China have been inconsistent and self-serving.

~~~
natalyarostova
How is that a misrepresentation? He's started a trade war with them. In a
world with a few nations with ICBMs it's often valuable to maintain some
semblance of respect with countries capable of destroying you, even when
initiating a trade war. Most people didn't enjoy the cold war.

~~~
swagasaurus-rex
Countries routinely disrespect each other all the time.

"War is the continuation of politics by other means." \- Carl_von_Clausewitz

------
maximente
i applaud your willingness to publish this content under your real name, and
also understand your real name is closely associated with your software
service.

i understand that gives you a certain amount of power that other employees,
say of Apple, may not have. kudos to you for using it fruitfully - sincerely.

i am sure this will come across as tin foily, but i would advise you to
monitor your digital assets and maybe even personal ones for
probing/attack/etc. you're publishing an anti-CCP piece on a widely trafficked
web property and are easily identifiable. you are making an enemy of a
powerful adversary.

appreciate the piece and best of luck.

~~~
ddevault
Author here. Thank you for your earnest concern. I'm a pretty risk-averse
person and I take lots of pains to address those contingencies for all of my
digital services.

~~~
natch
Hi author, wondering what you think China should do with the organs of
executed prisoners? It’s easy to find fault with them for (presumably) not
asking for permission but it seems it would be a pity for them not to be used
to help patients in need, no? This is separate from the question of what
supposed crimes led to the execution. Short waiting lists can be explained by
the lack of permission not only for executions but for all deaths of healthy
people... not to defend China on other points, but this one seems like a odd
concern possibly just zeroed in on for dramatic emotional effect, rather than
for any actual practical reason.

~~~
philsnow
If the prisoners didn't consent to their organs being used (to bolster the
health of the people who imprisoned them), they should not be used.

Anything else sets up a perverse incentive to execute more undesirables.

~~~
natch
The perverse incentive part makes sense.

For the other part, I have trouble understanding why a dead person would care
about anything after their death ...although I can understand them having
wishes before death, but any such wishes should be weighed in context for
their reasonableness given all factors.

~~~
rlue
It's not just about the rights of the person being executed, but also those of
their loved ones.

You may say you wouldn't care if your dead carcass was, say, grotesquely
abused for someone else's amusement—after all, you're dead and no longer
around to have any feelings about it—but how would your children feel? How
would you feel if that was the fate awaiting your life partner?

The shared endeavor of human society entitles people to dignity even in death.
That includes the right to bodily integrity.

~~~
natch
>grotesquely abused

Yeah that would be disrespectful. Kind of moving the goalposts though to use
that example when talking about organ transplant, something that helps people
who might otherwise die. Obviously I am not saying execution is worth it for
that. Just more that if someone is dead already for whatever reason, it's hard
to see it as a bad thing to help the living, if that can be done.

I mean if we're going to fashion extreme examples for dramatic effect, that
can be done on the other side too. Imagine if the relatives have racist
objections to donating an organ, and let someone die because their own
feelings would be hurt if they saw a person of the "wrong" race being helped.
How do you weigh their racist feelings, versus the life being saved? It's not
that clear to me that their feelings should be at the forefront when other
factors are considered.

I agree that dignity in death is a good thing. Just not so certain as you that
there is only one way to get there. And none of this is to claim that China
does what they do with dignity... I highly doubt that. But organ transplants
are not such a terrible thing.

~~~
sobani
For some religions, organ donation is a grotesque abuse of the body.

~~~
natch
True, but you can find a religious belief from some random major or minor
religion to justify or prohibit just about anything.

Including things that harm others or infringe on their rights.

So if that is guiding policy, policy is going to be a mess at worst or
severely hobbled at best.

China doesn’t generally hold religion in high regard when formulating policy.
They are more guided by practicality and expediency.

That puts them in conflict with many western values but it’s interesting to
look at it from their perspective.

For those people who believe that organ donation is a grotesque abuse, that is
bad but it should be weighed against other bad things. People dying is also
bad. Which is worse? Grotesque abuse of a corpse, or letting someone die?
China appears to have made a decision on this question.

------
spacehunt
As a Hong Konger, thank you for writing this.

One nitpick: Hong Kong has its own legal definition of "rioting". It's from
the Public Order Ordinance[1], and carries a maximum 10 years jail sentence.
The entire law itself is quite draconian and was struck down in the final days
of British rule, but was reinstated immediately after the handover.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Ordinance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Ordinance)

~~~
gscott
When China took the book sellers they prosecuted them in China under Chinese
laws. It stands to reason China could take and prosecute some "rioters" under
Chinese law and Chinese implications.

[https://qz.com/1110266/two-years-later-the-last-of-the-
vanis...](https://qz.com/1110266/two-years-later-the-last-of-the-vanished-
hong-kong-booksellers-gui-minhai-has-been-freed-in-china/)

~~~
spacehunt
Of course. But I'm specifically talking about "rioting" as referenced in the
Five Demands.

------
notadamsmith
I'm a Chinese. I admire your courage to post this article.

But there's one thing that's fundamentally wrong in your article. Trading with
China is, for now, beneficial to EVERYONE, including you, Drew DeVault, and
the top 1% richest. Specialization and trading are the fundamental ways to
advance the economy. Surely there will be blue collar workers in the US losing
their jobs, but that's just how economy goes. We care about individuals, and
it's a tragedy that anyone loses job, but looking at the big picture every
working individual should be able to learn new skills and ready to move to new
industries if the current industry no longer provides enough jobs.

When Samsung moved its factories out of China and into Vietnam, lots of
Chinese workers lost their jobs. One day if Samsung pulled their factories out
of Vietnam and moved to an even cheaper country, workers in Vietnam will lose
their jobs too. What should those workers do? Learn new skills and move on to
other industries. That's a cold thing to say but that's how the economy works.
Workers in country A lose their jobs because of the trading with country B
does not mean trading with country B is wrong.

If you hate (and you should) what the Chinese government has been doing, the
right thing to do is work together to move factories, plants, and companies
out of China and to another country, if and only if they can still provide the
products/services at the same or even better quality with a lower cost.

~~~
kp98
I think it is not about not trading persay - it's about not supporting a
totalitarian mercantilist. While we both benefit on paper, the fact that so
much of this wealth is concentrated at the top in America slows the velocity
of money, and the fact that the Chinese are using it to fuel totalitarian
measures compounds the trade deficit to the point where it is no longer simply
about money and jobs.

Maybe having a gigantic trade deficit is natural and okay, but when it is
being used to fund the CCP it is problematic. America may have to take a short
term hit, but if it moves its factories out to India, Thailand, Taiwan,
Mexico, even back to America the marginal loss in wealth due to trade will be
outranked by the substantial benefit to society we will get from not fuelling
a nation that seeks supremacy at the cost of humanity.

------
gregwebs
I don't necessarily disagree with the article, I just want to point out that
outside of the US others will readily view this line of thought as
hypocritical and self-serving.

As a US citizen, I try to consider how the rest of the world may view our
actions (glass houses and all). Following the logic here it would make sense
for the rest of the world to cutoff trade with the United States due to the
Iraq war, which has caused many civilian deaths.

But if you agree that the rest of the world should have sanctioned the US for
the Iraq war (among other things) then there might be a consistency with
trying to sanction China.

~~~
Aunche
The US has always valued "principle" over actual results. In Iraq, Saddam was
"evil", so he had to go, even though it would leave the entire country in the
power vacuum and destroy the livelihoods of the average Iraqi. Ditto for
Gaddafi in Libya.

This post is much the same way. A poorer China is only going to deteriorate
their human rights. A wealthier China is going to crave for more freedom. This
happened in South Korea, which many forget used to be a brutal military
dictatorship.

~~~
jeffdavis
"A wealthier China is going to crave for more freedom."

We've been testing that theory for decades with negative results.

Maybe it works other places, but it doesn't seem to be working in China.

~~~
pinkfoot
Perhaps you just need to wait longer?

~~~
jeffdavis
I hope so. But we have to start considering the possibility that we are
causing more harm than good.

For instance, if China's economic influence is stifling free speech in the
west, that's a pretty disturbing trend.

~~~
pinkfoot
Given that the USA has federal and state laws preventing and punishing even
muttering an idea about not selling to Israel, I'd say you should consider
adding a few names to that list.

If its actually free speech you care about.

------
yorwba
> Note: if you are interested in conducting an independent review of the
> factuality of the claims expressed in this article, please contact me.

Since the author reads HN, I'll assume this comment counts.

> The Chief Executive of Hong Kong (Carrie Lam) is elected directly by the
> mainland Chinese government, and the people have no representation in the
> election whatsoever.

The Chief Executive is elected by the Election Committee. While that includes
some members representing China's National People's Congress, the majority is
made up of a carefully gerrymandered selection of company representatives and
professional associations, similar to the Legislature Council.
[https://www.elections.gov.hk/ecss2016/eng/figures.html](https://www.elections.gov.hk/ecss2016/eng/figures.html)

Also, if you intend to e.g. prevent Chinese developers from using your
products, I'd advise against it. Foreign code hosting platforms are a major
way for Chinese developers to organize where they can't be reached by the
government.

~~~
ddevault
Hey yorwba, thanks for the comments. I received similar comments from HKers
earlier wrt the Chief Executive office. Minor corrections are on the way out.

The changelog for this article is here:

[https://git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/drewdevault.com/log/master](https://git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/drewdevault.com/log/master)

I have no plans to block Chinese citizens from using my services, though I
wouldn't be surprised if the great firewall had other plans.

~~~
gregwebs
I am not trying to troll but genuinely interested in figuring out the
boundaries of these proposed boycotts.

What is the difference between "accept investments from China" and allowing
Chinese citizens to pay for your service?

This article does not call on US companies to stop selling to China. There
seems to be a baseline assumption that creating (from the US point of view)
trade deficit will destroy freedom and that a trade surplus does not.
Intuitively it makes some sense, but I think it is good to explicitly discuss
this question.

It seems like your real issue is with US companies that "kowtow", but having
your own company accept a Chinese customer or a company accept Chinese
investment does not require kowtowing.

As pointed out in the above comment, some forms of trade can promote freedom,
and others can contribute to its destruction, so I am wondering if an approach
that was rule-based rather than blanket would make more sense (but I have no
idea how to make such rules).

~~~
ddevault
>I am not trying to troll but genuinely interested in figuring out the
boundaries of these proposed boycotts.

No problem, I'm grateful for your comments.

The difference is subtle but important. First of all, the Chinese users of my
service or a minority of a minority. Their participation has little to no
effect on the direction of the site. Their $5/mo subscription fee is not going
to move mountains. The kinds of investments I'm referring to are much larger,
and require treading softly to avoid insulting the Communist Party of China.

Second, because I've pubically condemned China, these users will have to go
out of their way to use my services, which would amount to tacit agreement
with these principles. I would be happy to support them. It's not individual
Chinese citizens that I have a problem with, it's the actions of the
government as a whole.

~~~
gregwebs
Then the principle would be that it is okay to do business with China if you
don't kowtow. That works well for selling to China but it can only work for
buying if there is a distributor outside of China which would just encourage
buying direct from China. A general boycott doesn't work with the kowtow
principle because an individual or company in China isn't in a position to be
able to state their opinion of the government.

~~~
throwaway1997
The problem is that in general for most companies, especially related to
discretionary spending, the proportion of customers who are from China is
increasing. Over time they end up kowtowing because the Chinese users threaten
to boycott them unless they "respect China", which usually means doing
whatever they are told to do.

------
novok
I don't think that the cheaper goods that China gave the world only benefited
the %1, and actually has helped a lot people in america and the world.

I also don't think that the economic miracle that has happened in China is a
bad thing, and they could of been more singaporean/south korean authoritarian
vs. genocidal authoritarian to achieve it. I really want china to become
another Japan or Korea eventually.

I do agree with you that China is basically a modern day nazi germany, pre WW2
at this point.

~~~
bcrosby95
The logic behind opening things up with China (including allowing them to buy
American companies) was that as they become economically successful, they
would be more open to things like democracy. At what point do you realize you
failed and close the barn door?

~~~
Aperocky
This assume the goal for China is democracy, and the one the west set for
them. If they failed, we must destroy their economy, take their people into
poverty, because the barn door must be closed.

This narrative basically can be taken verbatim by the CCP as propaganda
material. “The west didn’t like our political system that made great
economical progress, and they will try to destroy your livelihood. By the way,
they think the economical success of China is entirely a gift of the west. It
has nothing to do with your hard working.“

~~~
bcrosby95
So we should continue to let them buy US companies despite the reverse not
being allowed? We should continue to let their companies operate freely in our
markets despite the reverse not being allowed? We must maintain this double
standard because the CCP might make propaganda out of it?

~~~
hungryhobo
Given the number of times 'national security' has been the reason for barring
Chinese companies from operating in the US or anywhere else, I don't think
what you describe is true any more

~~~
novok
That is a fairly recent development, while the opposite has been status quo
for multiple decades.

------
ridaj
I stopped reading here:

> $155B worth of electronics, which we already have domestic manufacturing
> capabilities for [4]

The citation here is to the effect that the manufacturing technology is
already present in the US. This does not at all translate to the capability to
produce these goods, in at least three respects:

* Capacity of production (an industry manufacturing billions of goods requires at least new plants to be built)

* Logistics network (transportation, special zones with enough industry concentration to generate economies of scale)

* Skilled and experienced labor. Take whatever item you can think of, the people who have been in the manufacturing business for that specific item for over a decade have skill and experience above and beyond the mere technological capability to produce.

All of these things would translate at least to higher production costs
(regardless of thoughts on currency exchange), market shrinkage from lower
affordability, and potentially shortages as well.

The real economy is not as easy as software - you can't just install a new OS
and run, it takes decades to transform industries at this scale.

~~~
djokkataja
Sure, it would cost the US to make a point to China that they find some of
China's policies unacceptable in a trading partner, but it would also cost
China - that's the point.

~~~
ridaj
I am concerned with this statement appearing to make a misleading minimization
of the cost on the US side, as if it was a simple matter of turning around to
a different seller.

------
pjc50
There are a lot of jobs dependent on trade with China (our company was
affected by the Huawei ban, for example), and the fantasy that you can just
cut-over to US manufacturing without huge transition job losses is
unrealistic.

And if the US wants to get serious about the use of trade sanctions against
human rights violations, there are a lot of places closer to home that it
could look at. Not to mention the laws against boycotting a certain country
for its human rights violations.

There's also the fantasy of assuming that China's _next_ move after the trade
sanctions would be a de-escalation. There's a lot of escalation opportunities
for them. Like Taiwan.

(Let's be clear, this is not an apology for the human rights violations by
China, which are very real especially in Xinjiang; what I am asking for is the
same to be applied consistently and not driven by straightforward nationalism)

~~~
icelancer
>> There are a lot of jobs dependent on trade with China (our company was
affected by the Huawei ban, for example), and the fantasy that you can just
cut-over to US manufacturing without huge transition job losses is
unrealistic.

Completely agree. I very much empathize with the author and this issue is the
only one where I feel some sort of connection with the current POTUS, but the
engineering-at-scale capacities in the United States pale in comparison to
China for a variety of reasons - some due to a cheaper labor force and more
"flexible" labor laws, and some simply due to culture.

We do not have this capacity now and it is dubious that we can build it
quickly without serious governmental subsidies and efforts not seen since
World War 2. I'm personally good with the change, but it will cost billions if
not trillions of dollars in lost productivity and marginal costs over the next
decade or two, and this is not something to handwave away.

~~~
sct202
There are a hundred million+ factory workers in China producing products at
massive scale for the world. Scaling up enough equipment, robots, and skilled
workers in America to do even a fraction of that work is going to be a huge
undertaking.

------
moderngrandma
Thank you for the article. I’ve personally stopped buying Chinese made/owned
products due to the HK protests, but it has been extremely difficult to
convince friends and families to do the same because I couldn’t properly
explain to them _why_ this was such a big issue. Thank you for spending the
time to write up this article, and thank you for taking a stand.

------
baron_harkonnen
If I might post an unpopular opinion, and let me assure you I'm not secretly a
pro-CCP shill: what's happening HK has much more to do with changing economic
realities than it does with an evil agenda from the Chinese government.

In 1997 HK had 1/3 of the GDP of mainland China and was the only way for
Western companies to interact with China. Today HK has 3% of the GDP of
mainland China and a huge part of this is because China has opened its borders
to foreign investment. Shenzhen has a thriving economy because if you're a
western company and want to do business with China, you can just go there and
do business. In the past you would have had to go through Hong Kong to make
this happen.

The Hong Kong riots were sparked because China wanted to extradite someone who
murdered his girlfriend in Taiwan and then went to hide in HK to avoid
extradition. If the same thing happened in the united states we would be
equally furious. Of course I'm not stupid, I know that this extradition is
part of a growing feeling of increasingly powerful influence of China on HK,
and I know this because this how independent nations feel when the US
similarly puts extradition pressure on other countries. Look what happened
with Julian Assange!

But the protests in Hong Kong aren't just about some emergent "evil" coming
from China. Their part of the economic and social anxiety that comes from
having your economic power completely change in the span of 20 years. In
America we know power and independence go hand in hand.

I'm equally as wary of growing Chinese political power as I am of US Hegemony.
But the current strife in Hong Kong is perfect propaganda fuel for both the US
and China. Both nations essentially get to stoke the flames of nationalism
while HK suffers. I strong encourage people to at least question the
prevailing narratives from both sides and start to look at the economic
realities of what's happening.

~~~
uitersers
It’s definitely about the economy. Just look at Macau.

There are no protests there. They were also a former Westen colony and now
under 1 country, 2 systems like Hong Kong.

The only difference is their GDP per capita is almost twice that of Hong
Kong’s.

~~~
junar
Macau's has been solidly pro-Beijing for over 50 years. While there are
economic differences, there are certainly political differences as well.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12-3_incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12-3_incident)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Assembly_of_Macau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Assembly_of_Macau)

------
m_alexgr
Thanks for having the guts to say this. Granted that collectively "the West",
those who explicitly or tacitly support the Anglo-American banking cartel, are
not without major flaws and human rights abuses as well. But execution of your
political opponents to harvest their organs for money? That is above and way,
way beyond the pale.

We don't need China. Increasing automation, and with other countries picking
up the slack, China will become more and more irrelevant. We don't need to
support in any way the completely amoral CCP.

------
jayliew
Tech people: Rant about egregious things that China and Russia does
(political, freedom, basic human rights, etc.)

Also tech people: Vehemently oppose helping the US DoD with their highly-
sought after skills, sign online petitions, protest and/or quit their high-
paying jobs at <insert tech company that provides value to US DoD>.

Serious question for these tech people: What are you exactly doing to help
solve the issues you've ranted about?

I'd like to hear thoughtful responses that are not the typical fallacies (e.g.
ad hominem, ad populum, straw man, etc.)

~~~
driverdan
How is the DoD going to help with China and Russia? We're not going to invade
them.

If you're referring to the NSA or CIA they're both organizations that ignore
the US constitution so there's great reasons to not work for them.

~~~
jayliew
> We're not going to invade them.

So, that is your opinion. The whole point of having a credible option to use
violence, is that one is willing to use it. Otherwise, there is no credibility
in the threat, which defeats the entire purpose of peace and security that is
backed by the _potential_ use of violence. In that sense, if one misses a
court ordered appearance, one shouldn't be surprised to see law enforcement
knocking on one's doorstep with the threat of violence for legal non-
compliance.

Do black hat cyber attacks constitute an "invasion"? If you say no, then
that's what Russia / China is banking on, because they're doing it, and
betting that the US won't resort to conventional military use of force in
retaliation. Since there's no real threat of painful retaliation, they can
continue hacking away with no consequence then?

If you say yes, then you're saying that the US should respond to cyber attacks
with conventional military use of force, tanks, planes, boots on ground, etc.
because you see cyber attacks as no different than a conventional attack by
those countries.

Regardless, the US needs more cyber security professionals and other technical
professionals (e.g. machine learning etc.) to help with the defense against
these actors, but that's hard to do with all this backlash from techies.

~~~
deusofnull
Doesnt excuse it either way but do you believe the USA and its intelligence
agencies doesnt conduct similar black hat cyber actions in China / Russia?
That status quo is simply what modern espionage looks like and doesnt
constitute hard military action until it crosses lines it has yet to (shutting
down a power grid, for ex).

To build on my other response, perhaps intead of being a China warhawk, which
could be the most devastating and destructive war in history if escalated to
nuclear war, how about instead we revist things like permenant normalized
trade relations with china? How about we invest in local high tech skilled and
automation assisted manufacturing such as can be found in south korea? there
are many other options besides hard military force and to rush to that is
immature and dangerous.

~~~
jayliew
So in my original question, I was inquiring what people were actually doing to
positively impact the world in the direction they want it to go (preferably,
objectively measurable results), because I know everyone here has opinions
about what someone else should do.

------
jdkee
What is discounted is the value of a decent middle class job to a high school
graduate in many parts of the country. The qualitative value of that loss of
human happiness to pride, satisfaction, purpose is not measured by traditional
economists. Now, 25 years out from NAFTA and the start of major
deindustrialization in the Midwest we are seeing the fruits of those globalist
policies. The rise of deaths of despair which is reducing lifespan for middle
aged males in the United States.

This is the tragedy so silently born by The many that eludes the “but Wal-Mary
lowered prices” crowd that is enriched by free trade.

------
simlevesque
Drew is a smart guy. It's cool that we get to hear his geopolitical views. I
knew he had some when I saw his name in the Patreon of Caspian Report.

edit: DDOS on sr.ht starts in 3... 2... 1...

------
bloody-crow
It's very easy to critisize someone else for not standing to some principles
as long as you don't have to deal the the consequences of doing so. Think
Blizzard for example. Sure, they could potentially publicly support Hong-Kong
out of principle and immediately get banned in China. The consequence of this
would be

\- Millions of Chinese people (lot of whom have nothing to do with HK or
goverment or human right violation) instantly lose access Blizzard products.
Their lives become unequivocally shitter.

\- Blizzard loses a ton of money and have to downsize significantly firing
half of their staff. They can't affort investing in new projects at the scale
they used to. Their products become cheaper and lose in quality. Maybe the
company even have to shut down due to not being able to sustain itself. It's
pretty shitty for Blizzard on all fronts here.

\- A lot of Blizzard employees lose their jobs, stop paying taxes and
participating in economy at the rate they could afford while being employed by
Blizzard. Seems pretty shitty for them and their communities.

\- Millions of consumers all over the world miss out on new Blizzard titles,
stop buying their games and participating in events organized by Blizzard
because company ceases to exist or can't afford to maintain the quality of
their products due to less budget. This is a significant impact on the economy
as a whole when a huge company generating wealth out of thin air ceases to
exist or loses its steam.

\- Chinese goverment is not affected by any of this and keeps doing whatever
it's doing.

Overall, seems like the move will hurt everyone involved, except for the
Chinese government. Remind me please, why we keep demanding Blizzard to punch
themselves in a dick for no benefit whatsoever?

I'm not necessary defending Blizzard here, really. I'm just pointing out that
the situation is a lot more complicated than shallow takes like in the one in
the linked article tend present to it to be.

~~~
hkmaxpro
It’s the outrageous penalty that upset Blizzard supporters. Initially
announced penalty to Blitzchung: [1]

(1) banned from the current tournament (2) forfeit any prize money
(approximately US$4,000 by that point) (3) banned from other Grandmaster
tournaments for one year

By contrast, Overwatch League player Josh "Eqo" Corono made a racist gesture
and said "I am Korean" on a stream, and was suspended for three games and
fined $3000. [2]

Not that Blizzard cannot penalize Blitzchung. Just not out of proportion.

> Millions of Chinese people (lot of whom have nothing to do with HK or
> goverment or human right violation) instantly lose access Blizzard products.
> Their lives become unequivocally shitter.

Judging from China’s ban on NBA’s that lasted only two days, China’s ban on
Blizzard may be equally short-lived. [3]

> Blizzard loses a ton of money and have to downsize significantly firing half
> of their staff. They can't affort investing in new projects at the scale
> they used to. Their products become cheaper and lose in quality. Maybe the
> company even have to shut down due to not being able to sustain itself. It's
> pretty shitty for Blizzard on all fronts here.

Only 12% of Blizzard revenue comes from Asia-Pacific, which includes China but
also South Korea, Taiwan, etc [4]. Some sources say only 5% comes from China
[5]. Even if Blizzard loses Chinese market completely, I don’t see why they
need to downsize significantly and fire half of the staff.

The same goes for your remaining claims.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzchung_controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzchung_controversy)

[2] [https://www.usgamer.net/articles/blizzard-is-in-an-
internati...](https://www.usgamer.net/articles/blizzard-is-in-an-
international-mess-of-its-own-making)

[3] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-basketball-
nba/exci...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-basketball-nba/excited-
china-fans-cheer-nba-game-despite-row-over-hong-kong-tweet-idUSKBN1WO017)

[4]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/dfezlv/activis...](https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/dfezlv/activision_blizzard_revenue_by_country_boycotts/)

[5]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/dp1py7/blizzard...](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/dp1py7/blizzard_lost_a_big_sponsor_after_the_hong_kong/f5s6rr8/)

------
sneak
It really surprised me that Google staff went apeshit over Dragonfly, and
GitHubbers over the ICE contract, yet Apple rank and file seem relatively
content with a special backdoored iCloud service that is used in China, no
doubt used daily to target people for human rights abuses via surveillance.

~~~
flyingswift
Same thing could be said for Microsoft, where employees were upset they were
providing O365 and Azure to ICE, but there is no similar outrage directed
towards the special China cloud they run

~~~
sneak
Microsoft has always been firmly embedded with human rights abusers and
military the world over—there was no departure from the status quo there.

------
trynewideas
this is certainly one way to inexpensively pentest sr.ht at enterprise scale,
and thanks for the heads up

------
a13n
Hey mods is there a particular reason this post is being penalized? As of
writing it's #22 with 400 points in 1 hour, while #5 has 119 points in 3
hours.

~~~
zzzcpan
Votes alone don't determine frontpage position and it's still on the front
page, so clearly it's not being penalized. Some people probably flagged it
too, as I did.

~~~
nailer
Why did you flag it?

~~~
yorwba
It's flamewar fuel. (I didn't flag it, but only because I enjoy the heat too
much.)

------
AdeptusAquinas
Didn't the US blow up 30 afghani civilians a few months ago with drone
strikes? Didn't even make the front page.

We all make deals with monsters for economic safety, or because there is near
nothing we can do about it. That includes China AND the US.

~~~
jjcc
Killing civilians is unfortunate and mistake. However it's controversial
because the views of the leaders of a nation is quite different from average
people that there are costs and risks you cannot avoid to protect more
civilian death. Logically that's a legitimate claim. In statistics majority of
killed were terrorists. i.e. the killing is quite effective and accurate.

The real flaw of the strategy is fundamental misunderstanding of root cause
and how human society works. Killing didn’t reduce the capability of the
terrorists. The growth of terrorists out paste target drone killing numbers.
Killing cause more growth. That’s why US eventually talk to Taliban. The
failure is on another level not accuracy of drone target killing.

------
awinder
"The United States would be unable to buy $155B worth of electronics, which we
already have domestic manufacturing capabilities for4

4: [https://www.lg.com/us/press-release/lg-electronics-to-
build-...](https://www.lg.com/us/press-release/lg-electronics-to-build-us-
factory-for-home-appliances-in-tennessee)

4: [http://download.intel.com/newsroom/kits/22nm/pdfs/Global-
Int...](http://download.intel.com/newsroom/kits/22nm/pdfs/Global-Intel-
Manufacturing_FactSheet.pdf")

This is a truly perplexing argument, especially the sourcing to "make" the
argument. Ones an article about a single factory that LG opened for washing
machines in the US, the other that Intel has chip manufacturing plants in the
US. This does not make the argument that America has the resources, both human
and raw materials, to pull off a China manufacturing pull-out.

A lot of the article, especially the parts on who gets rich off this
arrangement and the human rights components are very much on point. But making
it out like a China manufacturing break would just be simply accomplished
because LG makes some washing machines here is pretty ridiculous. It would be
very difficult, and it would require a lot of government assistance & policy
encouragements to develop people, acquire access to rare earth minerals, and
lay out vast sums of upstart capital to get factories built. It would take
time. Making it out like it's a simple fix is convenient and simple, but like
most complex things that are made out to be simple & convenient, it's just
flat-out wrong.

------
AlexandrB
I agree with all of this, but also can't help thinking about the old Bastiat
quote: "When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will."

------
piinbinary
What can I, as an average Joe living in the US, do to help?

Edit: After reading responses, I realize that there is a better question to
ask: What people in the US in general do to help (vote a certain way, write to
certain politicians, change purchasing habits), and how can I specifically
participate in that?

~~~
kick
You work at a multibillion-dollar company, yet live in a state with an
(comparatively) uneducated population. That's far from average.

One idea would be to run workshops for children/or families teaching them how
to repair their devices, and which devices to get if they want them to last
(think upgradability, battery-replacement, similar). If we're wanting to
lessen China's power over the working class, making people capable of
maintaining electronics in the same way they can maintain cars will go a long
way. Bonus points if you teach them how to reinstall operating systems without
bricking their systems.

Another idea would be to use your programming ability to create software to
help people: think getting past censorship, keeping communications secure,
similar. China and Hong Kong both are more or less tech wonderlands, solving
the UX issues that stop anyone from throwing a single-board computer (think
Orange/Raspberry Pi) online and using it to communicate over the open web and
store data without fear of it being compromised in some way by doing nothing
more than flashing an OS image and booting would mean that almost everyone
would gain, but especially people in those countries.

------
davidw
No mention of the TPP?

Seems like a pretty big omission, given that it's what smart people were
putting together to give us some better leverage against them without "going
cold turkey", which would tank the economy in a massive way that would
absolutely crush those who are not so well off.

------
mdorazio
The problem is that doing what the author proposes and severing trade
relations entirely would be extremely harmful to the 99% of Americans in the
short term. Prices for virtually everything would skyrocket far faster than
wages. And they would do so for everyone, not just blue collar workers. In the
long term things _might_ be better, but it would be a lot more painful to get
there than I think most Americans are prepared to stomach.

Personally, my thoughts are in line with the author’s, but realistically we
need to be looking at unified trade sanctions on key goods and potentially
clamping down on foreign investment in both directions.

~~~
esotericn
If you treat the cost of consumer goods in isolation as the only thing that
matters in the economy, sure.

People who are gainfully employed do not have a problem with the cost of
general goods like food and electronics; this stuff is cheap.

The problem (not only in the US) for most is under/unemployment and the cost
of housing.

Because the jobs have been shipped offshore.

~~~
zip1234
The cost of housing is a complicated matter but is mostly not due to jobs
going elsewhere. Single family zoning and 'never change' rules in home owners
associations and cities are some of the biggest drivers of housing prices.

------
jeffdavis
"not beneficial to anyone but those who are already obscenely rich, and
certainly not for our poorest"

An otherwise fact-driven post is undermined with this claim. Even if true, it
would be very hard to support this claim.

~~~
buboard
while exaggerated, he s probably referring to this:

[https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2018/2/2/16868838/el...](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2018/2/2/16868838/elephant-graph-chart-global-inequality-economic-
growth)

------
pcr910303
Er... why the fact that US is a net importer from China is a bad thing?
(Admittedly, I'm not a US citizen, & I'm not really interested in US's trades
so I don't know the numbers but...) I thought US was basically using China as
a big factory?

US's exports will decrease when manufactured in the US since China's cheap
labor is allowing US goods to have a not-that-high price. So really the net-
import from China is just something that US should embrace to get the net-
exports to other countries.

~~~
Jarwain
From what I understand, the issue is dependence on an external source for
those goods that we consume, and through that the implicit support for the
Chinese Government & its current regime

------
badrabbit
A few problems.

For one rare earth minerals are dominated by China making domestic electronic
manufacturing impossible.

Second, less profit means stocks go down,economic recession is likely. People
loss jobs,savings,etc...

China will be hostile, they have infiltrated US institutions extensively.

I agree the west should move away from China but only because of China's
hostility and this needs to be done slowly!

------
dailiangren
When you refer to some resources, you'll have great responsibility to check
their factuality (especially for this kind of sensitive topic), otherwise, you
are wasting your efforts on making your points and the reader's time for
reading and even worse misleading the audience largely.

------
drudru11
Why is this on the front page of HN? It is showing up at #48 and yet has 672
points.

------
babisour
You don't understand China. What I saw in this article is completely biased
and brain washed by you know who.

~~~
dang
Ok, but rather than name-calling ("completely biased", "brain washed"), it
would be better to add good information in a neutral way, so readers can learn
something. If you don't want to do that or don't have time, it would be better
not to post, even though it's frustrating to see a thread full of comments you
disagree with.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
cnThrowaway
I traveled extensively in China this year. A strong sense of nationalism keeps
the government strong and allows them to trample on the rights of minorities.
A trade war / sanctions will only fuel that even further. (Like the
humiliation of Germany after WWI helped Hitler to gain power).

The best remedy is to undermine the Great Firewall. And the easiest to hide
censored content* in sites that are not filtered (like this one). Just hide it
well enough that Baidu etc. cannot get to it.

*: That can include proxies to news sites, facebook etc.

~~~
yorwba
If Baidu can't get to it, what's the point? Hiding censored content in sites
that are not filtered isn't going to help anyone if it can't be found.

~~~
cnThrowaway
Many ways. A members only section or a captcha would look the most natural.

------
blfr
I'm not convinced that most people are hurt by trade with China but I'm
perfectly fine with paying $2 more for a keyboard and $15 more for a cupboard
to not deal with a murderous communist (redundant, I know, no one is really
surprised here, right) regime.

What is true is that this will not meaningfully impact lives of ordinary
westerners. There is no reason other than corporate greed for the status quo.

~~~
nycsamurai
I'm just playing devil's advocate here but I don't think it would cost $2 more
for a keyboard, try > $100 for a keyboard. Unicomp is one example, made in
Japan Realforce keyboards go for $200-$300. New balance makes sneakers in the
USA but those cost ~$200. Everything would cost 2-3x. Would you pay $3000-4000
for an iphone that's built in the USA? Ever try to find a toaster oven that's
made in USA? There is one but it'll set you back $285.

I would buy usa made stuff because I have the means to, currently typing this
on a Realforce keyboard wearing USA NB sneakers. But I'm pretty sure it would
put a huge dent in retail sales across the board. Maybe higher volume in
manufacturing would lower usa-made prices and create more jobs in the usa
which might tip the revenue flow from the 1% to everyone else.

~~~
aianus
Why made in USA? Why not made in India or Vietnam?

~~~
uitersers
If it’s human rights you’re worried about, then Vietnam is also communist and
what India is doing in Kashmir is worse than Hong Kong’s situation.

------
jchw
Hey Drew, just wanted to say I couldn’t agree more. I do not know about the
US’s domestic manufacturing capabilities, and I don’t think I care, either;
this situation is not OK. It probably wasn’t OK for a very long time.
Something needs to change. It probably won’t come at a small cost.

I’m sure this thread will have a lot of whataboutism. Remember what your
parents always told you: two wrongs don’t make a right.

------
snogaraleal
It's also worth noting that the financial elites and the CCP aren't really
doing business, they're committing fraud and theft. China isn't exporting
productivity, it's exporting deflation and corruption.

Arguably, the trade war may have nothing to do with trade and, together with
financial decoupling, everything to do with deliberate monetary strangulation.

The Trump administration holds all the cards, the CCP holds none. The
challenge is getting the job done without more people getting killed.

[https://mises.org/wire/china-trouble](https://mises.org/wire/china-trouble)

[https://mises.org/wire/chinas-biggest-problem-isnt-trump-
its...](https://mises.org/wire/chinas-biggest-problem-isnt-trump-its-broken-
banking-system)

[https://thesoundingline.com/chinas-money-supply-has-
outgrown...](https://thesoundingline.com/chinas-money-supply-has-outgrown-its-
economy-over-two-fold-since-2009/)

------
biolurker1
I am a bit weirded out and pessimistic. If in any case in 27 years HK will be
totally under Chinese control what would be the reason to fight it now
temporarily? Unless the issue at stake is complete freedom. That can escalate
to full blown war and possibly a global one.

------
torgian
All I can say is that I agree with everything in this article.

~~~
kangnkodos
The article ignores the impact on poor people in the US if trade with China
was cut off. In general, poor people would pay more for everything that is
currently imported from China. Everyone would pay more, but poor people would
be impacted the most.

I'm not sure if that's enough to say trade with China is a good thing.

But it should turn your idea of a very simple answer into a much more
complicated picture.

------
gnomewascool
I mostly agree with the substance and recommendations of the article, and
greatly appreciate it. The following is just a quibble.

> Let’s lay out the facts: China is conducting human rights violations on the
> largest scale the world has seen since Nazi Germany.

Even if you ignore events like the Cambodian genocide by the Khmer rouge or
the Rwandan genocide, on the basis that, while far more intensive, they
affected a considerably smaller population, China's own cultural revolution
was a far greater human rights violation than what is happening now in China.
(Arguably, in terms of scope, it was even worse than anything than the Nazis
did, even if its intentions were probably more benign.)

I'd recommend changing the quoted sentence to something to the effect of "one
of the largest scales".

~~~
scarmig
The Cultural Revolution was bad, but it caused "only" 1-2M deaths. Probably a
stronger comparison would be the earlier Great Leap Forward, with 20-50M
deaths.

But, yes, both are far greater human rights violations than what is happening
now in mainland China.

------
marcoseliziario
Richard Nixon carries a lot of responsibility for the current situation. He
never ever put the human rights issue on the table, he never pressed on the
issue, because from the beginning his sole goal was having access to a cheap
workforce, and damned the rest. The Communist Party situation at that time
rested on the abuse of power. Nixon just strengthened their position by given
market access and capital without pressure on the human rights issues.

Actually, the cynic in me thinks that this was by design. By reinforcing the
power of the communist party, american corporations wouldn't have to worry
about the chinese workers fighting for better labor and environmental
conditions, thus keeping costs low.

~~~
friendlybus
They do work together. There is benefit in controlling the growth and rise of
the Chinese and american populace. I don't know how you guarantee working
conditions for 1 billion people. Just the spread of resources alone gets thin
very quickly. Buy giving them the space to rise by selling to the US with
subsidized shipping and what else has lifted hundreds of millions out of
poverty, abuses or not. That is a fundamental good assuming it is stable. I
think the courageous view is to integrate the cynical view and go one step
further.

------
baud147258
> China is conducting human rights violations on the largest scale the world
> has seen since Nazi Germany

I'm pretty sure China had been already committed human right violation on that
scale before.

------
craftoman
"I call for a worldwide boycott of Chinese products, and of companies".

Yeah throw away every piece of electronic you have including Apple products.

------
mac01021
> It’s nice to believe that we would have stood up to Nazi Germany if we had
> been there in the 1940’s. China is our generation’s chance to prove
> ourselves of that conviction.

I don't think the US joined the war out of concern for the welfare of
Europeans so much as out of fear of Germany's continually-expanding borders
(and as a reaction to that Pearl Harbor thing)

------
cedivad
Well, it does look like the West found its archenemy after all.

------
kashmiri
It would be naive to say that China is the only country perpetrator of
genocide today, look at its another neighbour i.e. India who is governed by
extremist political party today and has locked down 8Million Kashmiri people
from more than 100+ days who's land has been UN designated disputed territory.
There are well documented genocides perpetrator by Indian military there.
Whole of Kashmir is loced down under curfew (no mobiles, no data, no business,
no healthcare services etc) from Aug 5 after Indian parliament unilaterally
abrogated their rights articles. NO one talks about them :(

------
csomar
> It’s nice to believe that we would have stood up to Nazi Germany if we had
> been there in the 1940’s. China is our generation’s chance to prove
> ourselves of that conviction.

This, right over here, might explain why Hitler got away with what he did for
a long time before the international community decided it's time to do
something.

------
paggle
I feel like the human rights angle might add enough political capital to the
economic argument (that we should have used 50 years ago) to stop the fucking
CEOs from mortgaging the country's economic future for an extra zero on their
bonus checks.

TVs should cost $5000, washing machines $2500, etc... that will create a
domestic repair industry, be better for the environment, create skilled jobs
that don't require college, and improve our national self-sufficience and thus
security, and deprive a totalitarian government of revenues.

------
slowenough
China doesn't want the protest to end. People who believe they are protesting
China by supporting these terrorists and their activities in Hong Kong are
only supporting the central government's plan.

The Hong Kong human rights and democracy act if enacted only supports the
central government's position on Hong Kong. The unrest is an opportunity for
Beijing. The media discourse suggests otherwise... only to the benefit of
Beijing. Understand the true meaning of your position, so as not to look so
foolish.

Or not, and keep supporting China ( I thank you ) but thinking you're not.

The world doesn't have to be unipolar.

------
kd3
I'm well aware of the fact that the author lives in the US which has been and
is still involved in numerous cases of human rights violations and oppression
of entire countries worldwide. But the article is excellent. While China's
foreign policy hasn't been as oppressive as the US so far, locally they are
implementing Orwell's 1984 with precision. It is fucking disgusting.

------
ThisIsBrilliant
Straight from the heart of a coding nerd and amazingly well written. I had to
make an account just for this. It there were pulitzers for blogs, this
nameless coder would win it.

------
dirtyid
> Hong Kong have been constant allies to the West

This is certainly an... interesting assertion. HK is the financial conduit
that made Chinese rise possible, and the engine that powers Chinese financial
influence abroad. HKers enabled this, not so much the generation that's
protesting mind you, but most remotely affluent HK migrant in the past 30
years was the beneficiary to this arrangement.

Overall, fairly lazy and unsophisticated, Reddit tier analysis from generic
American exceptionalism lens. Just to touch on XinJiang briefly, since people
in the west are quick to draw on Godwins law and make ridiculous Nazi +
genocide comparisons. The leaked NYT reports confirms if anything that the CPC
motivations is consistent with their past claims of de-radicalization and de-
secularization. There's no intention to eliminate if only because killing all
the Uyghurs means China has to revise 56 minorities into 55, that would look
bad on Xi's legacy. What is happening is an extremely immoral and excessive
COIN strategy, you know the kind US embarked on post 9/11 that continues to
this day. Each using instruments to their strength - US bombs, Chinese
infrastructure. At best it would be classified as cultural-genocide, which is
basically undefined and unenforceable in UN. The silver lining is that since
the motivation is counter-terrorism, there's a chance China will pivot away
from the harsh strategies. Mandatory disclaimer that explanation doesn't not
mean endorsement.

Regardless, it's always a little cringe to see Americans try to play the moral
Trump card. Argue security, argue hegemony, argue influence, but don't argue
morals like that has any weight anymore. HK rights bill passed on the same day
US changed stance on West Bank settlements. Chinese containment is cold
geopolitics. The appeal for international condemnation is particularly out of
touch. China is a driver for global growth, economically and demographically,
most countries including the majority of developed g20 has their future
prosperity pegged to China. US is the least trade dependent major economy int
he world with enviable geopolitical posturing that enables her to disengage
with China on a long enough timeline, no one else has that benefit, and they
have even less incentive to as US is becoming increasingly unreliable and
withdrawn from the global order that she created. There's a reason why,
including US, only 2/5 and 3/195 countries in the world banned Huawei despite
years aggressive US posturing. South Korean just signed a defense agreement
with China. Being near peer power with US means China is afforded the luxury
of getting away with crimes against humanity like the US have.

Want the world to shun the future Chinese order? Propose and _demonstrate_ a
better one.

~~~
camgunz
> Propose and _demonstrate_ a better one.

Let's start with the very simple "have more than one viable political party".
The CCP would never tolerate that. The rest of your comment is casual
dismissal of "cultural genocide" and whataboutism. Rather than try and
distract with transparently propagandist techniques, you should really
consider reforms that the CCP could undertake to adhere to the rule of law and
respect human rights in China. That at least would be constructive.

~~~
dirtyid
>That at least would be constructive.

Starting with the western values as endpoint for reform is not constructive
but "transparently propagandist". Different countries apply different models
at different points in development - "rule of law and respect human rights -
is simply not a priority for China or many developing nations, where the moral
calculus is better spent on attaining other freedoms, chiefly the freedom from
want.

> casual dismissal of "cultural genocide" and whataboutism

The point is cultural genocide is something that gets pragmatically dismissed
everyday in the interest of geopolitics. Just like how people like to causally
assert "whataboutism" whenever the brazenly obvious is pointed out: China gets
away with abuses and will continue to because America led the way. If
Americans want human rights to apply to large countries, start at home and
demonstrate that international rule of law applies to everyone. No one takes
hypocrites seriously except hypocrites themselves.

~~~
camgunz
> Starting with the western values as endpoint for reform is not constructive
> but "transparently propagandist"

Ah but the rule of law is a global concept many disparate civilizations
invented independently. Even China, here's Wikipedia:

> In China, members of the school of legalism during the 3rd century BC argued
> for using law as a tool of governance, but they promoted "rule by law" as
> opposed to "rule of law", meaning that they placed the aristocrats and
> emperor above the law.[15] In contrast, the Huang–Lao school of Daoism
> rejected legal positivism in favor of a natural law that even the ruler
> would be subject to.[16]

> "rule of law and respect human rights - is simply not a priority for China
> or many developing nations

China is the 2nd largest GDP in the world. It's no longer a developing nation.
It has the ability to destroy the entire planet with pollution from its
industry, its biotech research, and of course its nuclear weapons. This is not
an excuse.

It's also not an excuse for any nation anywhere. No nation can be small enough
to abduct, torture, murder, and harvest organs from its own citizens. The mere
suggestion is disgusting.

> The point is cultural genocide is something that gets pragmatically
> dismissed everyday in the interest of geopolitics.

And practically everyone in this thread is lamenting that. We're ashamed of
our nations for not acting against this, and OP explicitly calls for us to
take action.

That is, except commenters like you, who are working extra hard to make
excuses for the CCP with twisted arguments and whataboutism. Speaking of:

> Just like how people like to causally assert "whataboutism" whenever the
> brazenly obvious is pointed out: China gets away with abuses and will
> continue to because America led the way.

Besides being--again--whataboutism, you can't have it both ways. You can't
say, "we're justified in doing the worst things the US has ever done" without
also saying, "we're trying very hard to do the best things the US has ever
done". Which, to be clear, are:

\- rule of law

\- respect for an expansive, equal set of human rights for all

\- free, fair, open elections

This is a very basic human rule that children learn. Someone else's bad
behavior doesn't excuse your own bad behavior. Take responsibility for your
actions, and try to do better. Say what you want about the US, but we try and
do that, and anyone with even a passing knowledge of US history knows it's
working.

~~~
dirtyid
"global concept" =/= "global endorsement", nevermind that there are constant
reforms and improvements to Chinese legal system, the anticorruption drive for
instance which the west dismiss as power consolidation but subsequent analysis
has concluded to be a broadly genuine effort. Or to acknowledge that reforms
take time, and is subject to regression depending on conditions. How long did
it take African Americans to get the right to enfranchisement.

> no longer a developing nation

Of course it is by GDP PPP, comparable to IRAQ. By multiple other other
measures as well. Just because it has a few extremely well developed coastal
cities doesn't mean the population as a whole as been elevated.

> It's also not an excuse

I wasn't making an excuse, explanation =/= endorsement. I specifically said
the situation in XinJiang was an immoral overreaction. Nor was I suggesting
the OPs letter was not warranted, just poorly reasoned and articulated. China
isn't a monolith, people shit talk the government all the time, publicly. Some
third rail subjects are prone to hysteric consensus, XinJiang being one of
them, because anti-terrorism makes people irrational everywhere, leading to
disproportionate responses.

>whataboutism

Again, when did I justify? I was drawing a comparison on why US moral
arguments are not credible with respects to containing China especially when
one appeals to international audiences, particularly those who suffered under
US hegemony.

> best things

Best things in principle but not practice - hence need to demonstrate actual
commitment to values.

> very basic human rule that children learn

I mean the CPC also indoctrinates kids with 2/3 of those values. But what we
teach children is simplified platitudes, reality is murkier. The 1/3 (open
elections) elected a leader that is rapidly dismantling the global order or
undermining allies everywhere. Not that that the last few prior
administrations were faultless. That's what children growing up in such
countries learn.

>Someone else's bad behavior doesn't excuse your own bad behavior.

Your bad behaviour undermines (but doesn't invalidate) your ability to
criticize others, which this open letter and many myopic US arguments couched
in moralism refuses to comprehend.

> anyone with even a passing knowledge of US history knows it's working.

And anyone with passing knowledge of contemporary US history knows vast
components are degrading. Which makes these appeal to values arguments
particularly unsuccessful. And whenever they're met with resistance, the
canned dismissal is whataboutism or shills without acknowledging that the
shiny city on the hill has been tarnished. Just like there are components of
the Chinese system that is working and simultaneously degrading. You have a
much rosier evaluation on the US system than the last 20 year warrants.

~~~
camgunz
> nevermind that there are constant reforms and improvements to Chinese legal
> system, the anticorruption drive for instance which the west dismiss as
> power consolidation but subsequent analysis has concluded to be a broadly
> genuine effort

This is certainly possible, and I of course applaud anti-corruption policies.
We have something of a corruption problem here in the US you may have heard
about.

The mistrust comes from the fact that the CCP doesn't respect the rule of law.
If we had faith in its legal system, then we would have confidence. But we
don't. It's also an odd coincidence that anti-corruption has consolidated Xi's
power. Anti-corruption efforts need to be independent, lest they too become
corrupt efforts. When they're led by those in power, how can they be anything
other than a purge? Here's what Wikipedia--citing Willy Lam from the Jamestown
Foundation--says the process is:

> Investigations by the party's disciplinary bodies are not part of the state
> judicial system. When an official is detained for an investigation, known as
> Shuanggui, they are essentially placed under house arrest and are isolated
> from the outside world. The subject often must endure days of grueling
> interrogation.[50] Data from the first half of 2014 showed that the
> conviction rate of those who were investigated in that time period to be
> around 99%.[50] The CCDI and its local counterparts usually gather evidence
> covertly well in advance of detaining the subject. Generally, when an
> official is announced to be under investigation, the CCDI has already
> collected an overwhelming amount of hard evidence. China scholar Willy Lam
> also wrote that the CCDI has seen a massive expansion of its powers since
> Xi's ascension, and that it was increasingly involved in the governance of
> the state. Lam also contended that the CCDI seemed to be deriving most of
> its power from Xi Jinping personally.

This process is a joke. It cannot be taken seriously.

> Again, when did I justify?

This is a justification:

> Different countries apply different models at different points in
> development - "rule of law and respect human rights - is simply not a
> priority for China or many developing nations, where the moral calculus is
> better spent on attaining other freedoms, chiefly the freedom from want.

Here you are justifying China's violation of human rights because they're a
developing nation. Plain as day.

> Your bad behaviour undermines (but doesn't invalidate) your ability to
> criticize others, which this open letter and many myopic US arguments
> couched in moralism refuses to comprehend.

If your argument is that the CCP should only listen to perfect governments (or
citizens of perfect governments), that's a bad faith argument. If you don't
think they need to be perfect, maybe you could list some governments you would
listen to, or what standard a government could meet to warrant being an
authority on human rights, in your eyes, because numerous governments have
spoken out against the CCP's human rights abuses. It's also worth saying that
non-governmental organizations like Amnesty International and the UN have as
well. Also whistleblowers in the CCP government itself, also people under the
CCP's rule, etc. etc. etc.

So let's be honest, you're setting an impossible standard so you don't have to
take responsibility.

> Nor was I suggesting the OPs letter was not warranted, just poorly reasoned
> and articulated.

So how would you articulate it? How do you justify the CCP abducting people,
and murdering them by harvesting their organs? Something that, to be clear,
the US definitely does not do and has never done.

> The 1/3 (open elections) elected a leader that is rapidly dismantling the
> global order or undermining allies everywhere.

Yeah that's how elections work. You live with the results, even when you don't
like them and even when they're objectively bad. That's the commitment we have
to our values. The CCP could learn from our example.

And lest you think I'm being sarcastic here, I'm absolutely not. Free and fair
elections are a bedrock principle of any democracy.

> ...anyone with passing knowledge of contemporary US history knows vast
> components are degrading. Which makes these appeal to values arguments
> particularly unsuccessful.

You are again arguing that economic development trumps human rights. To be
clear, this is the kind of argument used to justify human rights abuses like
abduction, slavery, executions, mass censorship, and other horrors.

> You have a much rosier evaluation on the US system than the last 20 year
> warrants.

In the last 20 years, multiple states have rolled back laws on felon
disenfranchisement. We've passed significant criminal justice sentencing
reform (we have a long way to go here). We weathered the worst economic crisis
since the Great Depression. We passed Obamacare. We've legalized recreational
marijuana use in 11 states and DC, and some of those states are reversing
convictions and expunging records. We've had the longest economic expansion on
record. Oh and we legalized gay marriage.

Am I all sunshine and roses about everything that's happened in the last 20
years? Absolutely not. I'm no US apologist. I've read A People's History of
the US. I proudly accept being an SJW, and I'm often hypercritical of US
policy foreign and domestic.

All of which is to say I might be wrong about all kinds of things. I might be
overly optimistic. But I'm definitely not uninformed. And even given all that,
I can say without hesitation I would never choose CCP-occupied China over the
US. And I deeply hope the world won't buy the kinds of arguments you're
making. In fact, I hope you come around too :) Everyone can change.

~~~
dirtyid
This all boils down:

> Here you are justifying China's violation of human rights because they're a
> developing nation.

...

> So let's be honest, you're setting an impossible standard so you don't have
> to take responsibility.

Again, I'm not absolving China of their failures and abuses. But I also
recognize that currently, China is operating within hegemonic standards set by
70 years of US leadership. That is, the privileged to ignore international
laws and norms because as the great power, standard bearer, US set the
precedence for such behavior. XJ specifically maps onto hysteric over reaction
to post 9/11 attacks. There's a reason that XJ crackdown plays well to
domestic audiences besides shared Islamophobic ignorance - there has no been
no serious extremist attacks since the security apparatus was established.
Great powers with the resources to keep their population safe will do so even
if the cost is disproportionate to the risk or if the cost means eating away
at domestic rights. This isn't an argument that China has a "moral right" to
conduct such abuses like US in their war against terror, both are gross human
right violations, rather the precedents set by the largely unchallenged US
actions abroad, outside of concerned words like this letter, set the
established the allowable scope of of atrocities in the name of security. So
if Americans wants to have a credible podium to compel others to reduce their
scope of atrocity, then they must also reduce their own. Security follows MAD
logic in that regard, no one is willing to do less than what is acceptable.
And if free and fair elections are the bedrock, then every American is
culpable for setting the bar this low. Personally I wouldn't attribute blame
to voters, because I find the US electoral system too imperfect to express
populace desires when these conflict with challenge national interest.

> You are again arguing that economic development trumps human rights.

Economic development IS human rights. It's the basis for establishing the four
freedoms Roosevelt preached everyone ought to enjoy - speech, worship, want,
fear. There's a reason most Chinese / developing countries are preoccupied
with "want" and countries that are victims to extremist attacks over react in
response to "fear", because physiology and safety is the base of maslows
hierarchy of needs. Not everyone has the luxury of affluence to fulfill
everything freedom right now. Sometimes they must choose, moral calculus is
not easy when every decision are bad trolley problems.

>And I deeply hope the world won't buy the kinds of arguments you're making.
In fact, I hope you come around too :) Everyone can change.

This is your fundamental misreading of my position. I prefer liberal values as
well but understand the conditions they spring from, and the long trajectory
it takes / will take to get there in developing countries. All the Asian
tigers that the west hoped China would emulate sprung from established
authoritarian regimes who grew their economies via protectionism policies
until the people reached a level of wealth that made pursuing other freedoms
attractive. IMO China will be no different, even accounting current
developments in surveillance society. And more specific to the quoted point,
my criticism is the lack of US moral consistency and leadership is what makes
the Chinese model attractive. And it is. Most developed western country that
requires immigration to support their future is being destabilized by massive
demographic and social changes, read non white immigration influx no small
fault to US ME policy, leading to nativism and populism that's springing up in
liberal societies around the world. No one has a solution to this, US is not
offering a credible alternative. Nor do they have competing plans to help
underdeveloped countries like Chinese B&R. If Chinese integration camps work
in XJ, expect it to be adopted elsewhere relabeled as civic lessons with *
characteristics. IF BRI works well, expect the many countries it touches to be
Sino aligned if not out of ideology but dependence. Focusing on China bad and
debt trap is ultimately deflection to the fact that an absence of US moral
leadership and inability to address contemporary and global problems is
causing people to lose faith in the model that US is championing.

~~~
camgunz
I'll take your reluctance to defend other misdeeds committed by the CCP that
I've listed as an admission that they are, indeed, indefensible. Let's finally
move on to this last bit of whataboutism you're clutching.

> XJ specifically maps onto hysteric over reaction to post 9/11 attacks.

The Uighurs predate the CCP by hundreds of years. They are indigenous to their
area of Xinjiang. They've resisted CCP rule--which has been imposed on them
unwillingly--and because the CCP hasn't provided a political solution, some
have resorted to violence (you might recognize this dynamic from what's
happening in Hong Kong right now).

The 9/11 attacks had many motivations (Osama bin Laden made them all clear).
But "you've annexed our homeland and are systematically erasing our religion
and culture" was not one of them.

So there is no comparison between the CCP's actions against the Uighurs and
the US's actions towards Muslims. The only thing they share, at all, is that
the victims are Muslims. The Uighurs aren't immigrants. That's their land.
It's a facile comparison, and reflexive whataboutism from a regime so used to
playing this card it doesn't even think about it anymore.

If you're interested in a truer comparison, look to the US's treatment of
Native Americans. Unfortunately that comparison isn't favorable to the CCP at
all, because while we certainly committed atrocities when we invaded their
homes hundreds of years ago, and while the reservation system has serious
flaws, it's absolutely not "re-education" camps holding millions of people
outside any rule of law or oversight whatsoever.

> Economic development IS human rights.

If the CCP is interested in economic development at all costs, why does it
have such extreme income inequality? Let me quote the first paragraph from the
Wikipedia article "Income inequality in China":

> China’s current mainly market economy features a high degree of income
> inequality. According to the Asian Development Bank Institute, “before China
> implemented reform and open-door policies in 1978, its income distribution
> pattern was characterized as egalitarianism in all aspects.”[1] At this
> time, the Gini coefficient for rural – urban inequality was only 0.16. As of
> 2012, the official Gini coefficient in China was 0.474, although that number
> has been disputed by scholars who “suggest China’s inequality is actually
> far greater.”[2] A study published in the PNAS estimated that China’s Gini
> coefficient increased from 0.30 to 0.55 between 1980 and 2002.

What's actually happening is a relatively small number of CCP elites are
exploiting the people of China for their own enrichment. They use the politics
of fascism to secure their hold on power, they use their extremely
sophisticated and wide-reaching surveillance state to curb dissent, and they
leverage their economic might to gag nations around the world.

> So if Americans wants to have a credible podium to compel others to reduce
> their scope of atrocity, then they must also reduce their own.

I 100% agree with this. I'm not arguing that the CCP should listen to the US
though, and I'm not arguing that the US should be listened to. I'm arguing
that the CCP is a violator of human rights on a scale close to some of the
worst in history, and the world should do something about it.

> Not everyone has the luxury of affluence to fulfill everything freedom right
> now. Sometimes they must choose, moral calculus is not easy when every
> decision are bad trolley problems.

I 100% agree with this too. The problem I have with the CCP is that they argue
that they absolutely must violate human rights on staggering scales in order
to raise the quality of life for their citizens. This is, I hope obviously, a
false choice. China's GDP has no relationship to putting a million Uighurs in
camps. Actually that probably cost a lot of money, just like the political
unrest in Hong Kong will cost a lot of money as the recession deepens and
businesses leave.

But if the CCP refuses to see it this way, I'm comfortable playing on this
field. Like OP, I call on everyone everywhere to make it known that if you
violate human rights anywhere near the level that the CCP does, your economy
will not grow. We should expel these regimes from world governing and trade
bodies. We should not engage with them economically. Any diplomatic relations
must be predicated on their respect for rule of law and human rights.

> All the Asian tigers that the west hoped China would emulate sprung from
> established authoritarian regimes who grew their economies via protectionism
> policies until the people reached a level of wealth that made pursuing other
> freedoms attractive.

Not for nothing, but this is a real bad comparison. First of all, almost every
nation started out in some way as an authoritarian nation. So if your argument
is that you need to spend some time in a fascist incubator before your people
can be free, that's pretty dark.

Second, the Asian tigers are Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea.
It's true that South Korea has a history (again like almost every nation) of
authoritarian rule. It's also true that the KMT in Taiwan imposed martial law
for decades but has recently blossomed into a vibrant democracy. But Singapore
is not a free country, and Hong Kong isn't a country--much less a democracy--
at all.

(To be clear, Singapore has made great strides and I'm obviously not in charge
of who's free and who's not. I'm going off indexes like Freedom in the World
and the Press Freedom Index).

I'm sure people in the US thought free market principles would liberalize the
CCP. I've brought that up elsewhere, even in this thread. That was very wrong,
and it's important for us to realize that while economic development is, as
you say, necessary to ensure human rights, it's far from sufficient.

> Most developed western country that requires immigration to support their
> future is being destabilized by massive demographic and social changes, read
> non white immigration influx no small fault to US ME policy, leading to
> nativism and populism that's springing up in liberal societies around the
> world. No one has a solution to this, US is not offering a credible
> alternative.

Let me introduce you to a place called New York City, one of the most (if not
the most) diverse, densely populated places on the planet. We have literally
provided a blueprint and a working model for how to build a thriving,
multicultural, hyperproductive city.

Or feel free to look at other western cities like Amsterdam, Paris, London,
Toronto, Los Angeles, Sydney, etc. etc. etc. Of course there are problems, and
we need to work seriously to address them. But to my knowledge, we've yet to
disappear a million people into a secret camp.

\---

To be frank, it's clear what the CCP's values are. If you look at the economic
development of Guangzhou, Shenzhen and other cities, their investments in
growing their influence in the world, their policies to try and change the
demographics and politics of states like Xinjiang (migration incentives for
Han Chinese to move there) and Hong Kong (housing subsidies, etc.), their
aggression in the South China Sea, their development of weapons to threaten
their neighbors like Taiwan, their development of a sprawling propaganda and
surveillance apparatus, their investment in stealing intellectual property,
it's clear what kind of regime we're dealing with. If they were at all
interested in multiculturalism, human rights, democracy, the rule of law,
healthy political dialogue and dissent, religious freedom, or any other
liberal values, they'd invest. They can build an insane metropolis in less
than a decade, but they won't build a just court system. They aspire to build
a national park system to rival that in the US in a fraction of the time, but
they can't countenance rival political parties.

It's not because these things are hard. The CCP is obviously capable of doing
hard things. It's because these things would be threats to their power.

~~~
dirtyid
> XJ : 9/11

Of course context varies but doesn't matter in relation to the response being
a counter insurgency and domestic security issue. Which XJ is. It's not about
GDP, it's about safety and control over security. Atrocities in the interest
of that is a false argument, but it's also an predictable response as 9/11
demonstrated. Such comparison is not whataboutism, claiming so is just lazy
rhetoric. Bringing up Native American treatment in NA is apt, XJ strategy is
ostensibly "residential school" cultural genocide aka absolutely "re-
education" with the ultimate goal of forced integration. The difference is
China will backup stick of reeducation with carrot of development. XJ will
have better infrastructure and growth opportunities than reservations up in
Canada that doesn't have road access and water boiling notices. Incidentally
Canadian Tribunal on indigenous treatment labelled it has "cultural genocide",
but at the end of the day, few cares. Ultimately XJ will fall on the same deaf
years as much as US and a handful of allies tries to weaponize it as
geopolitical tool. Regardless, refer to explosive Tibet GDP growth and
development in the last few years for context. As far as actual cost, building
the infrastructure to intern a million is trivial compared to Chinese building
capacities. The scope of XJ seems huge but relative to 1.4 billion people,
it's literally trivial undertaking. The greater security apparatus throughout
China on the other hand to maintain power is much more demanding, internal
security budget exceeds that of military.

As for other strategies, they tried but it didn't work. The reason why Tibet
and XJ are "autonomous regions" is because they were based of soviet oblasts
where these regions and minorites retained extraordinary affirmative action
privileges. Much more in the west - exemptions from taxes, family planning,
bonuses to education enrollment on national test etc. The idea was
multiculturalism salad bowl, but the riots and terrorists attacks failed hence
integration strategy - the rational was melting pot analogy literally inspired
by US and the cities you highlighted. Also these cities you named fails to
recognize that multiculturalism is causing undeniable shift in nativism at the
national scale, all around the world. A few liberal cities doesn't change the
trend. The blue print works for some urban centres who can brain drain the
best to build flourishing societies is fails in other contexts. Of course the
issue in the west is immigration so the solutions / atrocities are different.
Whole of EU delegates war refugees via Turkey. Australia has Nauru Regional
Processing Centre. US has your camps and political pressure to Mexico to
militarize their migration routes etc. Canada is chill right now, but there's
backlash towards multiculturalism model all the same.

> Inequality & Corruption

This is an intentional Chinese development strategy for anyone versed in the
subject matter. Deng wanted to rapidly develop successful economic models via
SEZ on coastal cities, then apply these models to the interior provinces which
has languished. The pivot towards interior development happening now with goal
of total poverty elimination by 2030s. Current per capita GDP is $10,000
(actual forecast is $12,000), followed by complete urbanization and poverty
alleviation by 2030, followed by "China Dream" of per capita GDP of $40,000 by
2050. Some of the coastal cities are currently at $20,000 or $40,000 by PPP.
Rampant corruption was a tool used to direct state resources to generally
meritocratically selected local officials whose opportunities to graft is
connected to tied to fulfilling state mandates, i.e. take a little on the side
as long as it fulfills X growth goals to meet Y targets established by
politburo. This is why Chinese corruption is correlated to growth, against
conventional wisdom. The nature of Chinese mixed economy allows state-directed
capitalistic development. The problems you highlighted are features (well
hacks) not bugs. It's the only country in the world where this is true.
Everywhere else corruption leads to stagnation. But excess wealth inequity via
corruption also disrupts social stability hence anti-corruption drive. This is
posited by Yukon Huang, former World Bank director for China, Russia, and
Former Soviet Union Republics.

> Tigers & Development

The demand for other freedoms doesn't happen until certain levels of economic
development is reached. So yes, IMO absolutely "fascist incubator" is a dark
but necessary stage towards eventual liberalization, because that's the
default path. CPC is consistently responding to peoples needs, there's been
legal reforms, environmental improvements etc. People are fixated with money
right now, eventually they'll worry about values. The result will likely be
something along the lines of Singapore, a rich dictatorship with more western
compatible values but all that is dependent on people getting rich first.
There's been large regressions under Xi, but overall I'm positive about future
trajectory assuming the next phase of income equalization and development and
the demographic time bomb can be negotiated successfully. My view is as long
as China has GDP of Iraq there will be no broad pressure to purse values - not
democracy mind you - HK instability has ruined the Chinese appetite for that.

> CCP's values

You've just listed all the goals of every great power, some manner of hegemony
and political influence like that's somehow explicit to CPC. SCS claims is a
multi party dispute by many nations, CPC just happen to be powerful enough to
win. Building an military that makes neighbours feel threatened is the natural
byproduct of a big country modernizing it's military to fit security needs.
Chinese defense spending is only 2% of GDP, lower than her neighbours. Of
course, the goal is going to be regional hegemony like Munro doctrine. That's
not CPC values, that's just inevitable side affect of great power geopolitics
and the natural reaction by neighbors in response should be concern. Like is
the CPC not suppose to have an military suitable to her size or have missiles
that can hit Taiwan? The island 130km away.

Obviously the primary goal for CPC is power and self-survival, but that
doesn't mean it doesn't also pursue other policies that improve quality of
life, it just so happens those are safety and economically related right now -
hence CPC having broad domestic support. Explicitly because Chinese do not
want CPC to collapse, they just crawled out of period of anarchy, it's in most
Chinese people's self-interest that a competent CPC survives.

Again you have the right to call on people to antagonize CPC because you think
they're the historical tier bad human rights violator, but I think you'll find
that's a profoundly American-centric analysis. Relative to Chinese population,
the atrocities happening in China is comparable to US prison industrial
complex and wars abroad. No amount of moralizing is going to make such
equivocation not true. Just because US dominated social media ceaseless spam
China bad and HK protests to the exclusion of all else doesn't mean the rest
of the world minus a few staunch US allies will take the bait. It's a filter
bubble of American exceptionalism. Ultimately, my argument is you can't eat
your morals. So trying to undermine China via moral arguments is fruitless,
especially coming from Americans, who, having voting rights is individually
culpable for US behaviours that undermines their ability to critique. If the
west wants to contain China, they need to offer better alternatives - vaunted
US democracy and values is not it. There's a reason why so many nations are
taking loans from China and many Indians would trade in their democracy for a
few decades of Chinese development. Because it's more appealing than what the
west has offered in a long time.

~~~
camgunz
Part 2:

> That's not CPC values, that's just inevitable side affect of great power
> geopolitics and the natural reaction by neighbors in response should be
> concern.

I am _extremely_ confident that Canada and Mexico have no fear of the US
sending missiles to their cities, or troops into their territory. That's
because we don't do things like constantly assert that their land is our land,
threaten them with destruction, run propaganda campaigns to that affect, and
develop weapons specifically with the goal of penetrating their defenses.

> You've just listed all the goals of every great power, some manner of
> hegemony and political influence like that's somehow explicit to CPC.

I fully admit that the US committed atrocities against Native Americans when
we invaded North America. Slavery too was an abomination; Japanese internment
camps were disgusting, our treatment of Chinese laborers and immigrants (as
well as those from other parts of East Asia) was abhorrent, our criminal
justice system is an affront to justice itself, our border control and
immigration systems are deeply inhumane and unjust, etc. We would earn and
deserve international condemnation if we did any of that stuff today. And we
do, look at what organizations have to say about our immigration policies and
our criminal justice system. I wish the West would exert more pressure on us,
truly.

I'm happy to talk about those issues, just not in a thread about the CCP's
actions. When are you going to stop using the actions of others as
justification for the CCP?

And again if your argument is "well the US did it", why doesn't the CCP do the
good things we do (rule of law, elections, etc.)?

> Obviously the primary goal for CPC is power and self-survival...

This is the definition of a corrupt regime.

> hence CPC having broad domestic support

How could you possibly measure that, given the CCP's surveillance state, re-
education camps, vast propaganda network, and lack of any kind of free speech.

> Again you have the right to call on people to antagonize CPC because you
> think they're the historical tier bad human rights violator

"Antagonize" means "to cause someone to become hostile". By any reasonable
standard, the CCP is a hostile regime. You cannot make something hostile if it
already is. Do not try and imply the CCP is a peaceful, benevolent government
when the facts clearly show otherwise.

It's also very telling that you think my words, my political beliefs, could
cause a government to become hostile. Of course, when you're dealing with a
regime with no respect for human rights, that's a concern.

> Relative to Chinese population, the atrocities happening in China is
> comparable to US prison industrial complex and wars abroad.

It is not. Here are the things we do not do as a matter of policy:

\- Forced sterilization

\- Forced rape and impregnation

\- Organ harvesting

\- Interning millions of people without cause

\- Forcing millions of our own citizens to violate their religious beliefs and
to renounce their religion

> US dominated social media ceaseless spam China bad and HK protests...

This is pretty funny. Have you seen all the stories about the CCP's efforts to
censor anything about HK? This is the CCP's playbook, whether it's 8964,
Xinjiang, Tibet, or HK.

> Ultimately, my argument is you can't eat your morals.

Again, this is a false choice. You absolutely do not have to choose between
human rights, rule of law, and economic development. Again feel free to look
at the Democracy Index for examples.

> So trying to undermine China via moral arguments is fruitless, especially
> coming from Americans, who, having voting rights is individually culpable
> for US behaviours that undermines their ability to critique.

I'm not saying the CCP has to listen to my government or me. They obviously
won't; regimes that invest in propaganda as heavily as the CCP does aren't
interested in listening. I'm not even telling them what to do. You're making
excuses for their behavior, and I'm offering alternatives (invest in
independent legal systems, build liberal institutions that respect human
rights), but I'm not saying they should. I'm saying if they don't, that's the
definition of an authoritarian regime, valuing its own power and enrichment
over the well being of its people.

I am imploring the West and our allies to take action though.

I also think it's funny how you're trying to tie me to every action my
government takes via our democratic elections like I won't accept it. I do
wholeheartedly accept it, every American is responsible for the actions of our
government. That's because our government not only represents us, it is us. To
paraphrase The West Wing: when you try and hurl that at my feet, as if it were
something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it
won't work. Because I will pick it up and wear it as a badge of honor.

------
grumple
I can't help but agree. We're supporting a nation that is basically the
equivalent of Nazi Germany, only of even greater power, committing atrocities
of a similar scale, if not depth, and that's just what we know of - the
reality can only be worse, not better.

We do not need them, and we absolutely should not permit their behavior, or
allow them to profit from it. The time for a stand has come.

------
babisour
You don't understand China.

~~~
dang
Could you please take a look at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21587861](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21587861)?

------
AlexanderNull
We're already starting to get a lot of Whataboutism in the comments here. Yes
there are other issues in the world, do you really think we're not aware
there's a lot of bad stuff going on in the world??? If you're so concerned
with those other issues go write your own blog post about your issue and
gather supporters on your own.

------
spectramax
Liberal societies, such as the Bay Area (where I live), it’s impossible to
criticize anyone without having the doubt of “offending” someone. When it
comes to China, I can’t go out in the lunch room and openly criticize CCP
because you know, I could “offend” a Chinese National.

This needs to stop. I see this behavior on HN, which is frustrating,
counterproductive, anti-free speech and extremely left-winged.

Another problem is to try being a moderate in these liberal pockets of
America. The moment you pick out a couple of things that I agree about what
Trump is doing, I get intense opposition, lose friendships, get judged, etc.

The Bay Area, the Silicon Valley, the 3 trillion dollar neighbor of America is
a suffocating place for anyone who has dissenting opinion about some liberal
concepts.

Silicon Valley people think that moderates and right-wing folks hate gays,
lgbt community and loves guns, hates China which is far from the truth. Then
they feel to justify themselves by overcompensating, supporting China and
smearing the truth. Ironically, they make fun of right-wing echo chambers.

If your political ideology looks away from objective truth, you need to
question it. No matter how “conservative” or “liberal”.

This is from my personal experience, your MMV.

~~~
echelon
You're being downvoted for expressing a contrarian viewpoint.

This kind of censorship isn't even targeting hate speech, and it drives me
crazy. Why downvote them?

~~~
big_chungus
Because he's criticizing liberals and most people on HN are liberals. Most
censorship ("hate speech" included) is code for shutting your political
opponents up. HN makes this really easy by making comments hard to read by
removing contrast with the background as they get voted down; post something
too much against the grain and it'll get flagged and hidden by default. When
you hand users the power to shut those with whom they disagree up, it will
inevitably be abused.

~~~
kick
Paul Graham:

 _I think it 's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement.
Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems
reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness._

 _It only becomes abuse when people resort to karma bombing: downvoting a lot
of comments by one user without reading them in order to subtract maximum
karma. Fortunately we now have several levels of software to protect against
that._

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171)

~~~
big_chungus
Problem is, it doesn't just attach a "score" to a comment. The UI will
gradually hide comments as they are voted farther down; I've seen many that
are barely legible. Flagging also hides comments by default. I can't tell you
how many reasonable, well-thought out points I've seen that I have to
highlight with the mouse to actually read. I wouldn't even see many insightful
comments had I not logged in and enabled "showdead".

There is a great deal of difference between giving users the tools to express
disagreement and giving them the tools to block out the opinions of those with
which I disagree.

Finally, quoting Paul Graham isn't really an argument. Fine, it's his site,
but I'm allowed to say I disagree with how the voting on his site is
implemented.

~~~
dang
If a comment is faded, you can click on its timestamp to go to its page, where
it should be in the regular readable black.

------
bigpumpkin
The key logical fallacy is that by cutting trade with China, the various
grievances you list will somehow improve. For example, if we don't trade with
China, do you think the recently passed Hong Kong Freedom And Democracy act
will have any leverage with the Chinese? They will turn Hong Kong into another
city in Guangdong the next day.

------
known
China is like
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood)
and the devil is in the details
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_tr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_trade_war)

------
bachmeier
> The financial incentives don’t help any Americans, and in fact, most of us
> are hurt by this relationship.

What a weird statement. We buy Chinese goods because it makes us better off.
"The US is full of idiots that engage in voluntary transactions that make them
worse off" is a hard claim to accept.

Obviously some people are worse off because of trade with China. And some are
worse off because of technology. And a much larger number are worse off
because of domestic competition. Open source software has killed lots of
commercial software jobs. That's a good thing for most of us.

------
resters
All governments use the same playbook of tactics. China is in some ways worse
than the US, but the US has caused a lot more harm and destruction around the
world than China has over the past few decades.

It’s absurd to spend one’s moral indignation on foreign countries that are
marginally worse than the US in a handful of ways.

Organ donation in the US is hamstring by one main factor: Christianity.

American views on US atrocities are colored by one main factor: the religion
of American Exceptionalism.

The essay’s take on the economic consequences of economic freedom is utter
rubbish, but the larger issue is the absurd and misplaced moral indignation.
What a shameful, naive rant. Wow.

------
igammarays
Empires rise and fall, and are replaced by new ones. It's the cycle of life.
As much as I would hate to live in a China-dominated global economy, it now
seems highly likely to happen within my lifetime. Better learn to live with
it, or move to a country which isn't so dependent on the global supply chain
by virtue of its Western lifestyle.

~~~
rocqua
With a concerted effort we could push india into being the next superpower.

------
honest_tovarich
I lived in China for 5 years, most of the time in Xinjiang, and is sad how the
media manipulates people in the west, you clearly have never been in XinJiang
or in China at all. You can believe whatever you want and I'm sure most
readers here will support you, because like you , they have been deceived.
What is happening in Hong Kong is sad, I agree with you there, and something
should be done by the US and their allies.But, Uighurs are one of the 56
ethnics groups of China, like Mongolians, Weiwer, ... not a nationality, and
not the only Muslim ethnic group, there is no concentration camps or anything
like that. Sorry. There are Uighurs terrorists in prison after the bomb car
exploded in TianAnMen and the incident in Kunming's train station in 2013,
that you probably dont know about, in the same way the US have Iraqis and
afghans in Guantanamo... just because..... Good luck with your campaign, I'm
sure people with join you and think you are the coolest guy in HN today. But I
had to break it up to you... sorry

~~~
Miner49er
It is whataboutism, but the U.S. is guilty of a lot of similar things that
China is, not as bad in most cases, but I think it's fair to compare the
Uyghurs to Guantanamo, the way we're treating immigrants at the border, or how
discriminatory our justice system is towards black people.

We have a higher percentage of people in jail then China by a lot (5x). Many
of them are in jail for political/racial reasons (the Drug War, Immigration).

We have the NSA spying on all of us. As well as Google, FB, etc.

We treat our protestors horribly as well, look at what the FBI did to black
rights protesters or look at how the Dakota Access pipeline protesters were
treated.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with Drew on this article, and I'd support a
boycott, but in the words of someone I'm not a fan of: "Set your house in
perfect order before you criticise the world."

~~~
fastball
The Drug War is hardly political, and hardline immigration policies are not
"racial".

~~~
Miner49er
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two
enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy
chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story
published Tuesday. "You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make
it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to
associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then
criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman
said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their
meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know
we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." [1]

Crack cocaine carried a much harsher sentence then Cocaine, a law that very
clearly targeted black people. [2]

Marijuana use is the same between white and black people, but black people are
3.73x more likely to be arrested for it.[3]

[1] [https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-
rich...](https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-
nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html)

[2] [https://www.aclu.org/other/cracks-system-20-years-unjust-
fed...](https://www.aclu.org/other/cracks-system-20-years-unjust-federal-
crack-cocaine-law)

[3] [https://www.aclu.org/report/report-war-marijuana-black-
and-w...](https://www.aclu.org/report/report-war-marijuana-black-and-
white?redirect=criminal-law-reform/war-marijuana-black-and-white)

~~~
fastball
[1] Plenty of countries with homogenous populations have harsh drug laws, so
it hardly seems like that was the only consideration, if at all. After all,
Prohibition in the US happened a long time before 1968, and alcohol is
arguably less destructive than heroin, and nobody was targeting hippies or
black people with a ban on alcohol.

[2]
[https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/06/14/_if_to...](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/06/14/_if_tough_anti-
drug_laws_are_racist_blame_black_leaders_137273.html)

[3] Black people getting arrested at a higher rate doesn't make the policies
racist. It either makes the cops racist (possible) or it means that there are
other factors beyond skin color that are affecting the stats (most likely
explanation).

~~~
tossAfterUsing
> Plenty of countries with homogenous populations have harsh drug laws

encouraged/demanded by the US economic doctrine for the last 40+ years

~~~
fastball
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Drug_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Drug_War)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_Drugs_Act_(Singapore...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_Drugs_Act_\(Singapore\))

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade_in_China#Ov...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade_in_China#Overview)

[http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/topic-
overviews/con...](http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/topic-
overviews/content/drug-law-penalties-at-a-glance_en)

[https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/06/14/a-change-in-
russia...](https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/06/14/a-change-in-russias-
draconian-drug-laws-could-be-on-the-horizon-a65911)

[https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/08/28/ten-years-drug-policy-
fa...](https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/08/28/ten-years-drug-policy-failure-
brazil)

You'll notice a lot of countries on the list who aren't exactly best buds with
the US.

------
rado
> Hong Kong is the place where humanity makes its stand against oppressors.

Really? I didn’t know protesters targeted the local tycoons who made their
lives unbearable in the past 20 years. Not to mention the humanity of
laundering money for the worst thugs in the world. Perspective.

~~~
yorwba
You may have heard reports of vandalism. I'm pretty sure the tycoons weren't
too happy about their property getting damaged. They'd probably also like to
keep the seats in Election Committee that they'd lose if universal suffrage
were instated, but that the CCP has guaranteed them so far.
[https://www.elections.gov.hk/ecss2016/eng/figures.html](https://www.elections.gov.hk/ecss2016/eng/figures.html)

If you think the protesters support tycoons because they oppose the CCP, you
ought to reconsider whether those are really opposites.

~~~
rado
Yes, this sounds reasonable, unlike the outcry over Communist oppression.

------
deweller
I applaud standing up to China's human rights violations.

But this post grossly underestimates the short term economic effects that
cutting trade ties with China would have. Companies would go bankrupt. It is
quite likely that the US and possibly the world would enter a recession or
depression. These events will have devastating effects on people around the
world far beyond the 1%.

We are part of a world economy. We are dependent on China and China is
dependent on us.

Surely there are better ways to effect change in China than waging economic
war. War of any kind will cause suffering.

~~~
Ill_ban_myself
In 10 or 15 years the the better way to effect change will be armed conflict
in addition to economic recession. In another 30 years there will be no way to
effect change. The time to act is now.

~~~
deweller
Sure, let's act. But is cutting trade ties with China the right way to achieve
our goals?

I disagree with the premise that starting an economic war is the right way to
get China to change its policies.

~~~
rocqua
What are the alternatives of not kinetic or economic? Sanctions of government
officials? Cyber warfare?

~~~
deweller
Maybe not cyber warfare. But perhaps there are ways to give more and better
uncensored information to Chinese citizens.

------
hohohmm
Full of bs that rides the trending US narrative on China. How much a self-
fulfilling bubble of lies the western propaganda machine has weaved. Reading
this article makes me feel like reading a white day dream that totally misses
the reality, but checks all the right marks for the crusader mentality.

I see how quickly this gets down voted. I guess the media is not to be blamed
for fabricating all kinds of lies, for it what does is only a reflection of
what the western audience wants to see. The world is dividing just as quickly
as the US is dividing internally. I would not doubt the possibility of another
cold war, if the US bloc continues down this path by painting rivaling nations
with a different ideology as a heretic against US' version of democracy and
freedom, as an ultimate evil to be crusaded, its people as mindless zombies
brainwashed and eager for a quick dose of freedom drug. After all, the zealous
fever commits all the worst atrocities with the most self-righteous goals.
History has repeated itself enough times to not see the obvious.

~~~
kick
News Guidelines:

 _Please don 't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good,
and it makes boring reading._

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
hohohmm
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That
destroys intellectual curiosity, the value of the site.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
account73466
How else to turn HN guys to do illegal and/or immoral privacy-related things
if not to make them feel that they are doing the right thing?

~~~
kick
Both of you are Han Chinese, judging by your post history, correct? While this
may be intellectually hostile for you, it's certainly intellectually
stimulating, and helpful to the people in your country who aren't of the
ethnic majority (and to people of the ethnic majority outside of your country,
in places like Taiwan, that your government desires to claim so strongly).

~~~
hohohmm
"If you can't convince with a real argument, bring ethnicity into the
discussion to discredit."

~~~
account73466
even with that he failed

