
Oxford places ban on donations and research grants from Huawei - bubblehack3r
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/17/oxford-places-ban-on-donations-and-research-grants-from-huawei-chinese-national-security
======
RidingPegasus
Donations ok, but research grants? It does seem to be getting hysterical.

The unease around Huawei is justified, but does anyone think the 5 eyes or at
least the US aren't all up in Cisco (et al) hardware and have been for
decades? Every other country on Earth is subject to that. Not sure there's a
moral highground here.

Watching this unfold I'm always wondering how much it is about natsec and how
much is simply protecting corporate interests. Both are fair game for
governments to do, but it's hard to grok.

~~~
sgift
I wonder that it didn't happen earlier. In the rush to get Chinese money
western nations (and companies) ignored for a long time that China is a
dictatorship. With all the things that entails.

It looks like those things come now in sharp focus once again and Huawei is
the first victim of it. Regarding the moral high ground: IMO flawed democracy
> dictatorship.

~~~
geofft
To avoid getting into an argument about the blanket term "dictatorship," can
you list the specific things you think China does that are uniquely immoral
(i.e., that the Five Eyes countries don't also do)?

~~~
luddy
\- block access to the (non-Chinese) internet \- deny land ownership rights to
everyone other than the gov't \- routinely exercise this power by confiscating
homes and plots of land \- force the granting of CCP membership on corporate
boards \- penalize people for criticizing the government \- including
(sometimes permanent) house arrest \- put an entire region of the country
(Xinjiang) under permanent martial law

Look, chairman Xi isn't shy in saying that he regards Mao Zedong as his model,
and that his goal is for ethnic Chinese inside and outside the mainland to
line up single-mindedly behind Mao Zedong thought and, since he had it
enshrined in foundational documents, Xi Jinping thought. You might not call
that "dictatorship", but a lot of us do, and we don't welcome the concerted
effort to export it to our countries. It's an aggressive and expansive
ideology.

I know, I know: democracy and individual liberty is an aggressive and
expansive ideology too. All that means is that the world is likely to square
off over the distinction. As it should be.

~~~
zozbot123
> a lot of us

Who is "us" here? Anecdotally, a lot of Chinese people just don't care that
much about the specifics of their political system as long as the economy
keeps growing strongly and social harmony is encouraged. And yes, Mao Zedong
Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory and now Xi Jinping Thought are regarded as
important models and doctrines for how China should develop in the future. And
they seem to be working well enough so far. "Democracy and individual liberty"
may be okay for the West (though even here they're quite recent developments
historically!), but China is a huge country with a very significant legacy of
its own, and we should respect that.

~~~
luddy
What you don't get (or try to spin away) is this:

\- the money that China spends at Oxford and at US universities is an attempt
to spread the ideology I describe

\- inside China (I lived there for many years) there is ZERO ambiguity about
the purpose of these soft power programs. it is only wumao working outside
China who push the fiction that to object to propaganda programs that are
focused on the West is to interfere in Chinese internal affairs.

\- this has absolutely nothing to do with respecting the legacy of China
inside its own borders. it is about a concerted "Unified Front" that is an
open policy of the Chinese gov't and is being pursued using every manner of
soft power or sometimes sharp power, but most especially money, outside the
borders of China.

~~~
geofft
My question is what is unique to China. Do the Five Eyes not also invest in
universities so they can spread their ideology throughout the world, using
both soft power and bombs? Do they not also have ethnonationalist leaders?

If we are going to reject money for principled reasons, let us first have
principles and see who fits them. Let us not say who we don't like and then
find better-sounding reasons to dislike them.

~~~
dTal
luddy already comprehensively answered your question further up the thread
with a list of power abuses unique to China. Nor is it some great mystery what
principles we have that China does not respect. "Freedom of speech" is a big
one. "Representative government" is another.

When you ask "can you list specific things", and someone does so, and then you
ignore the answer and ask again, it begins to look like "whataboutism" in bad
faith, rather than an attempt to further the discussion.

