If they were some minor country that supplied all the world's bananas someone could potentially put together something like that, and we'd all live without bananas for a while.
But China makes just about everything, and not just cheap and simple stuff anymore.
In game theory (and experiments with real people) sometimes it makes sense to punish a misbehaving player even though it harms you yourself. It really does not seem like any country in the West is anywhere close to being willing to do that.
Which was failry explicirly aboit containing China.
I'd like to see something along the lines of "tariffs go up 5% each year, and will be dropped to zero when China drops the GFC". I don't want huge economic disruption for China or the US, but a slow disentanglement. And a clear carrot that lets them know it's not personal, the CCP just has to let its citizens talk with the peoples it wants to trade with. "Your move" to the CCP, while remaining positive about the Chinese people.
Otherwise, in spite of gains in redundant manufacturing capacity (great for local employment, and for national security), it's likely there would be a degradation in workers' rights domestically in order to keep costs low. In order to avoid these outcomes, workers' rights and human rights need to be something that most voters believe are important.
Any pressure would need to come from governments forcing the hand of larger businesses to slowly move complex manufacturing elsewhere.
Interesting, although it's not clear that they worked because of or alongside efforts. China is not a small country that can be economically isolated.
The real problem is not China producing cheap steel, but human rights abuses, and censorship. 45 hasn't done anything about that.
- He refers to the Wuhan Virus as the China/Chinese Virus (CCP is trying very hard from distancing themselves from responsibility; they won’t even let us into Wuhan to investigate).
- He started a trade war with China, which has forced companies to move their manufacturing to Vietnam, India, Mexico, Taiwan, etc. (Biden admittedly said he would end Trump’s China tariffs, but the many companies that already left are unlikely to return), and even high end tech such as the iPhone is starting to get assembled outside China as well.
- He was the first US President to speak directly with Taiwan's President since 1979.
- He made the largest arms sale to Taiwan in the past few decades.
- The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act and the Hong Kong Autonomy Act were signed under his administration.
- The TAIPEI Act was signed under his administration.
- The Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act was singed under his administration.
- Meng Wanzhou was arrested under his administration (which dragged Canada into it because China decided to arbitrarily arrest Canadian citizens).
- China Mobile was blocked from offering services in the US, citing national security risks.
- Huawei was blocked from using Android and chips with US tech (which will effectively kill their mobiles once their stock runs out).
- Huawei was blocked from building 5G networks (USA paid other nations to block them as well).
- Hong Kong’s special status was revoked.
- Universal Postal Union agreed to let countries raise postal rates after Trump threatened to leave - this means you’ll no longer be able to buy cheap junk from Aliexpress (and resellers like Wish) at no shipping cost (the receiving country was previously forced to deliver the products for free, even if you brought some toy for 10 cents).
- Trump is pushing for WTO to drop China’s developing country status.
- TikTok and WeChat (likely with more to come) would’ve been blocked by now if it wasn’t for judges temporarily blocking the bans.
There's a reason China's GDP growth in 2019 was the lowest it's been since 1990, and there's a reason China's worldwide reputation is at an all-time low. That reason is Trump. It's also no surprise that all the nations that suffer the most from CCP's actions, such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam, etc. tend to be pro-Trump.
The first item in your list is President Trump calling the virus the Chinese virus. Aside from maybe bringing his supporters as a rallying cry, what does that actually achieve? It feels more like hollow political rhetoric and not something that delivers any kind of results.
What do the arms sales achieve? Is it merely profit for the American industrial complex, or are you saying Hong Kong now has some chance against China in the event of a military conflict?
You're moving the goal posts. OP simply said the president "accomplished jack-all". I can't stand the guy either but these are at least accomplishments, even if the effects of some of them are symbolic. What do you want him to do? A land invasion?
From your last comment, are you implying no action can be taken that isn’t simply symbolic except for a land invasion?
Interesting that you turn this into a personal attack. If you agree with the OP, that’s okay. The goal has always been delivering results, not empty, feel good rhetoric that makes you “feel” good. If it’s about your feelings, then okay, I’m sure his strong man rhetoric is good enough over any actual policy shift.
Under all these external pressures, the economy of China has suffered. And this is more crucial than most realize, as CCP would remain in power, and the majority of its citizens tolerate the oppression and ignore minority's human rights abuse, as long as the economy is growing. Also as a result, CCP is experiencing more internal factional struggles. This is apparent in Xi's deployment of cultural revolution style tactics such as purges (under the name of anti-corruption, as vast majority of CCP officials are corrupt), requiring study of Xi thoughts (think Mao's little red book), and demand for absolute loyalty from the military to himself (generals have spoken out against him).
Replace prevent with reduce and I'd say almost all of them.
Say what you want about Trump but he has started to made it clear that there will be consequences.
And in your mind, what does it mean that Trump is willing to “stand up” to China? What is the net effect or outcome?
Last I checked, there are over 200,000 Americans dead from the virus. The American President initially denied it was a real issue, going as far as to say it was a Democratic hoax. Then he started having daily conferences, somewhat acknowledging their seriousness of the situation, but insisting it would all just disappear.
You can vote however you like, and no one here is asking you to tell us who you voted for. And I’m not asking you to justify your vote, although you indicated your candidate and your reasons why.
I’d prefer to go back to a policy discussion.
Arming Taiwan will help an American defense company increase its revenue for sure. But if we want to discuss impact on China, in a serious military conflict, Hong Kong has essentially zero chance of holding off a Chinese invasion.
The larger point I’m trying to make is that it’s not clear to me what actual impact the current Presidents policies have had. He certainly has great sound bytes to portray himself as being tough on China, but from the list of items you provided, I would love to know what fundamentally has changed.
The American President is fairly well known for exaggeration and hyperbole - he describes himself as the “best” or most informed on any particular topic. In his own words, his opponent is weak because his opponent will listen to scientists. I hope you’re able to disambiguate that tough words, whether it’s calling Mexicans rapists and criminals or saying the virus is the Chinese virus, don’t actually accomplish anything substantial other than maybe make you “feel good” or provide you confirmation on your beliefs on a particular topic.
Separate note: I do find it ironic that as an American voter, you believe the same President, who has financial interests and even personal bank accounts in China, is “tough” on China in terms of any meaningful policy.
Why does Trump need a second term for the two items you mentioned? Why didn't Trump already do those things? Given his administration's disastrous response to COVID and continuing denial, how do you take him at his word?
If we set aside COVID, the first two years of his terms had a fully Republican Congress. If nothing changed then, realistically what do you expect to happen next?
By the way, when you start a conversation by insulting people, you're not really convincing anyone of your viewpoint. If anything, it demonstrates your sense superiority over others and a lack of emotional intelligence.
Kublai Khan. For your education: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_conquest_of_China . To respond to your hyperbole, he actually conquered China rather than issue some decrees which you're counting as "winning".
Obviously (from my point of view; I could be wrong...) you're a deluded Trump supporter and there's no point in trying to convince you what a terrible president he is and to show you how he hadn't even considered how his policies (domestic as well as foreign) could (and did) backfire and disadvantage American businesses and consumers, but maybe I can convince you to consider this, written about Primary Candidate Trump in December 2015: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/15/the-donald-and-...
> Bear in mind that embarrassment, and the desire to avoid it, are enormously important sources of motivation. [...]. Nobody likes looking like a chump, and most people will go to great lengths to convince themselves that they weren’t.
> Now think about someone who has been supporting Trump since the summer. For the Trump bubble to burst, many people like that would have to slap their foreheads and say, “Wow, he’s not a serious person! What was I thinking?”
> And very few people ever do that sort of thing. Someone who has spent months supporting Trump despite establishment denunciations — which means something like a third of Republicans — will go to great lengths to avoid conceding that he has been foolish. At this point such people will insist that any negative reports about Trump are the product of hostile mainstream media; Trump’s very durability so far is likely to make him highly resilient looking forward.
But who knows, maybe I (and the Not-Trump voting folk) are the chumps, eh? To quote Orwell (full essay: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...):
> [W]e are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.
>Mr Trump told the Axios news site that achieving a "great" deal meant he could not impose "additional sanctions".
>The issue arose after allegations in a book by ex-Trump aide John Bolton.
>Mr Bolton had alleged that at a summit last year Mr Trump gave Chinese President Xi Jinping the green light on building the camps in its western region, with the US leader saying it was "exactly the right thing to do". Mr Trump denies the allegation.
>Axios says that when Mr Trump was asked why he had held off imposing further sanctions on Communist Party officials over the issue of the camps, he said: "Well, we were in the middle of a major trade deal.
>"And when you're in the middle of a negotiation and then all of a sudden you start throwing additional sanctions on - we've done a lot. I put tariffs on China, which are far worse than any sanction you can think of."
Trump is first president to come into office already supporting gay marriage.
>make it illegal for me to get the medicine I'm on
You are going to need to explain this since as far as I can tell Trump has not attempted to make any medicine illegal.
>Nothing like a little down-home American human rights abuses
Will you explain this one as well?
> He can't even condemn a terrorist group when asked directly to.
Trump has denounced white supremcy like 20 times.
I don't think the parent comment suggested anything like what you just said. And I agree with that parent comment, in that I find it amusing mental-floss to imagine how a very-low income family in the US can completely avoid Chinese made products.
Family living off the grid in eco-friendly community already does.
Farmer family can avoid a lot.
Poor family in the city or burbs has few options and can't avoid walmart/dollar stores.
Interesting how you left out the folks who buy the products in question.
I’d also say it’s surprisingly easy to boycott Chinese goods, as well as companies kowtowing to China.
The CCP already went unpunished with the Tibetans. Very few people in the west cared and it was before China became member of the WTO. The current administration tried to impose tariffs on China which were deemed illegal by the WTO. Maybe the west should have cared BEFORE welcoming China in the WTO.
It's also a perfect illustration of how otherwise supposedly intelligent people in tech are just as easily manipulate outside their area of expertise as the fox news audience.
I know that isn’t your point, and agreed on the WTO. As a mass we will never sacrifice a 10% cheaper product to stop inhumanities. We need to elect officials who will handle that via economics. I’ve always been a fan of taxing Chinese imports to offset this factor.
If only we can just keep partisan politics out of the discussions as the taxes on Chinese products were immediately bashed based on the person who implemented it. We need to look at the decision itself to evaluate it, not the party that made the decision. We can disagree with most of a party’s decisions but if you find you hate 100% of them you are likely applying a bias to something that may be good.
Check out Crouching Tiger. It’s a great modern book that includes how we are buying/trading our way into losing the next war.
Avoiding Chinese made products isn't a practical solution. Contract manufacturing needs to move elsewhere.
The CCP gains legitimacy from brining prosperity to the Chinese people. This prosperity is off the back of human rights violations, bullying other countries and corporate espionage. It is time we boycotted China. The whole world must turn its back on China to show this behaviour is not acceptable. It may hurt in the short term, but will benefit all of humanity in the long term.
The US is heading into a pretty contentious election, nobody is sure whether or not we're on the brink of a recession, international diplomatic relationships are in tatters. If the CCP took Taiwan right now, I don't see the US lifting a finger.
> If the CCP took Taiwan right now
Maybe. They could still infiltrate Special Forces teams (I'm sure they have boat teams trained for this very thing), hit Taipei with DF-17s, mine the outside boundaries of the strait, parachute guys in and take the harbors.
My point is more that the US isn't in a position to do anything right now, than that China is going to take Taiwan.
"China, Desperate to Stop Coronavirus, Turns Neighbor Against Neighbor"
I might feel something is a little over-the-top, but you might feel it's just fine. You might feel something is a little over-the-top, but I might feel it's just fine.
So, I guess my only answer would be that you would have to read the articles and decide for yourself.
You may have a different tolerance for the techniques described than I do.
"In the eastern province of Jiangsu, quarantine turned to imprisonment after authorities used metal poles to barricade shut the door of a family recently returned from Wuhan."
"Authorities have used computerized systems that track ID cards — which must be used to take most long-distance transport and stay in hotels — to round up people from Wuhan."
For example, I find this to be a bit much. I do, however concede that it works. You may be perfectly fine with it.
I find the prison camps in Xinjiang to be a little draconian. Plenty of other people feel that it's a wonderful idea.
Putting Uighurs in concentration camps is literally just helping them to learn more about the Han Chinese way of life.
Xkeyscore is literally just helping an analyst access a database.
A famine is literally just a national weight-loss program.
Extraordinary Rendition was literally just an opportunity for hundreds of people to visit other interesting parts of exotic countries.
Catch my drift? Pay attention to the 'rounding up' part that follows the contact tracing.
Again, feel free to disagree. There's a wide spectrum of opinions on this stuff.
That revolution will be messy, but it's needed.
It's always amusing when people who cause the most misery in the world shout the loudest about human rights and such.
Besides, the rules around country of origin are complicated, and some countries have product description law about this. And what's to stop Amazon sellers sticking fake country of origin on, as they can already do for CE marking?
Or the reverse: Amazon stick a China flag on iPhones. Apple are going to get extremely upset about this and sue/offer money to change that to a US flag.
The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Anti-Boycott_Act may make it illegal to force Israeli sellers to identify their country of origin.
Who declares the country of origin? Who ensures compliance for item? How is compliance done? Do you review every single item?
How do you ensure that manufacturers update their country of origin declaration if/wehen they change downstream procurement? If you the raw materials are sourced in China and assembled in Vietnam, does that count as a Vietnamese product?
Amazon still has trouble with fake reviews, brushing scams, and straight-up counterfeits. Adding another system that needs to be policed doesn't seem like a very good idea. Especially when that system (country of origin flag on every product) has questionable upside.
Amazon has also become almost as bad as Alibaba in allowing counterfeit and knockoff items to be sold openly.
China didn't displace tens of millions of people in the middle east from their homes, the US did.
China didn't destabilize dozen of countries (via assassinations, coups, and other unsavory ways to initiate regime change), the US did.
There's one threat to world peace, and that's the US. It's ridiculous that people think that somehow China could be worse than that.
China destabilized Korea, Vietnam and other countries in the area. Are seriously suggesting they didn't want regime changes in those countries?
Many of those people were displaced.
The US under Trump is actually starting to pull out of the Middle East. While bad things happened the US is at least stopping it.
China is continuing their aggression towards minorities in their country.
There was a unified Korea, led by Lyuh Woon-hyung.
Americans arrived afterwards, Lieutenant General John Hodge said: "one of our missions was to break down this Communist government".
If the Americans wouldn't have come, there wouldn't have been any north/south division (in fact, Kim Il-sung wouldn't probably end up leading a country). And you somehow think that it's China who destabilized it?
Similarly, it's the US that invaded Vietnam from the other side of the world. The only difference is that the country was already divided, after the Anti-French Resistance War. You think of it as "communist aggression", but the truth is that these were liberation wars from western colonization.
Similarly, the US propaganda personally blames Mao for "killing" people due to a famine. The reality is more complex, and unfortunately personal responsibility of state leaders is never recognized during these events. Similarly, Trump is "killing" hundred of thousands of people due to his mishandling of the pandemic, but we both know that he won't be held personally responsible.
I can get into more details, but you should reconsider what you choose to spread. If you're just repeating propaganda talking points, you're not going to accomplish anything good for the people in Korea, Vietnam, China or US people themselves. The only people that you're doing a favor to are the fat cats in Washington.
China destabilized Korea, Vietnam and other countries in the area.
You should watch "A radical experiment in empathy", by Sam Richards
A cursory google search reveals this to be true and to his credit Trump is very open about his lying. "My net worth is just a function of how I feel at the time" and "I could shoot someone on fifth avenue and people would still support me." Are statements he's stood by and never apologized for in anyway.
It's pointless. Actions that address the result of group behaviour need to come from the group (government). All else is just grandstanding.
We don't need crappy pens, toys, electronics, etc...
I don't know about you, but I'm personally happy to own one ballpoint pen that'll last me for 20 years (and only have to refill it from time to time). If anything, just to not see some poor guy work as a slave (long work-days, minimum pay, suicide nets). Right now you can just go purchase 10x crappy pens that easily break and dry out for around €2, whyyyy?
If that's effective for the long-term future and prosperity of the US, which is also important to counter the CCP - I don't know.
We really need UBI, stimulus, healthcare reform, and as much as I hate to say it Biden is the closest we get to that. But, vote who you feel is good and safe, I voted green. I'm not gonna vote shame anyone.
Just when you vote think about all that's coming : Global Warming, Water Wars (already started in Mexico), Droughts, More Fires, Covid, Covid part 2, Income inequality raised a factor or two, joblessness, homelessness for millions, protests, uprisings, etc... Next two decades will make or break us.
TLDR: Trump probably would be best against china, and if that were the only issue facing us, it might be good enough reason to go against the grain, but there's so much shit hitting the fan now, maybe we do need change.
This isn't the time to make some symbolic stand, it's time to vote Trump out - if that's what you believe in.
If they lose this election it's because they threw it. All they had to do was field anyone in good health (Biden isn't) who wasn't widely detested and they would have had it in the bag.
The party system in the US leaves so much to be desired.
Trump's worldview is destructive and idiotic, so then vote for his opponent.
Your point is being wasted, and another 4 regressive years of Trump all because you wanted to make a point that won't be heeded or come through at all.
How about the 3rd parties field a candidate people actually want to vote for? Not some fringe ideology.
As far as the democrats go, my prediction is that they will find another uninteresting candidate in 2024 and keep standing for nothing. Maybe its's Pelosi's turn?
> Xi "explained to Trump why he was basically building concentration camps in Xinjiang," Bolton wrote, citing the interpreter's account. The interpreter added that "Trump said that Xi should go ahead with building the camps, which Trump thought was exactly the right thing to do," according to the book.
> Bolton also wrote in the book that Matthew Pottinger, a retired US Marine and the current deputy national security adviser, "told me that Trump said something very similar during his November 2017 trip to China."
Make no mistake about it, Trump's anti-China rhetoric arises purely out of Xenophobia, not concern for Uighurs or human rights.
This is the same Bolton who publicly declared that the single biggest mistake of the Trump presidency was not launching a war against Iran (a war that would kill a million people most likely). The same Bolton who has never shown a problem with aggressively supporting lies, like the foundational lies used for the Iraq war, of which he was a big proponent. There is very little from someone like Bolton that can be trusted directly - which also doesn't mean everything he said about Trump is false, it means there is inherently a severe credibility problem with anything he says.
As Senator he voted yes to give China permanent normal trade status, stating:
> [Our course is clear. China's growing participation in the international community over the past quarter century has been marked by growing adherence to international norms in the areas of trade, security, and human rights.](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRECB-2000-pt13/html/CRE... of our colleagues disagree on this point. They would have preferred that the China trade bill be turned into an omnibus China Policy Act. I understand their objectives and their frustration with the slow pace of reform in China. But amendments offered by Senator Smith of New Hampshire--covering such diverse issues as POW/MIA cooperation, forced labor, organ harvesting, etc.--and Senator Wellstone of Minnesota--conditioning PNTR on substantial progress toward the release of all political prisoners in China--pile too much onto this legislation. Moreover, those amendments would effectively hold the trade legislation hostage to changes in China which passing the trade bill would promote. This seems backwards to me.](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRECB-2000-pt13/html/CRE...)
Biden later lobbied to grant most-favored-nation trade status and World Trade Organization membership to China:
> [In the critical fight over whether to grant most-favored-nation trade status and World Trade Organization membership to China in the 1990s — a fight in which, again, many of his party’s leaders in Congress were on the right side — Biden carefully shepherded China through the process from his powerful perch as the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Wherever a brake might have been applied — by placing human-rights or labor conditions on most-favored-nation status, for example — Biden voted the measures down and lobbied other senators for Beijing. Unfortunately, China and Biden got their way, and American workers are still suffering from it.](https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/joe-biden-is-chinas-c...)
As Vice President:
> ["In order to cement this robust partnership, we have to go beyond close ties between Washington and Beijing, which we’re working on every day, go beyond it to include all levels of government, go beyond it to include classrooms and laboratories, athletic fields and boardrooms."](https://newspunch.com/unearthed-biden-speech-in-china-urged-...)
> ["Already, we have made thousands of new items available for export to China for exclusive civilian use that were not available before, and tens of thousands of more items will become available very soon. That’s a significant change in our export policy and a rejection of those voices in America that say we should not export that kind of technology to – for civilian use in – China. We disagree, and we’re changing."](https://newspunch.com/unearthed-biden-speech-in-china-urged-...)
> ["I believed in 1979 and said so and I believe now that a rising China is a positive development, not only for the people of China but for the United States and the world as a whole." He continues: “it is in our self-interest that China continues to prosper” and retained hope “a rising China will fuel economic growth and prosperity and it will bring to the fore a new partner with whom we can meet global challenges together.”](https://newspunch.com/unearthed-biden-speech-in-china-urged-...)
> [Vice President Biden convinced China's vice president to agree to a deal that would unlock new fortunes for Hollywood. Biden asked Xi Jinping to relax China's quota of allowing only 20 foreign films to be shown at a time and to increase distribution fees for Hollywood firms.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/05/02...)
> [In 2013, the Obama administration allowed Chinese companies to invest in U.S. capital markets without having their books inspected by U.S. regulators, after meetings between Chinese officials and Biden.](https://epochtimes.today/where-biden-trump-stand-on-the-chin...)
As Presidential Candidate:
> [In 2019, Biden boasts about having spent more time with Xi Jinping than any other world leader, and that China wasn't a competitior to the United States. "China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man," Biden said at the time. "They're not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They're not competition for us."](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-trump-mischara...)
> [Biden Says He Will End Trump’s Tariffs On Chinese-Made Goods](https://news.yahoo.com/said-trumps-ideas-good-one-153901834....)
I'm at a loss for words at the barbaric and utterly inhumane treatment towards their citizens. This is insane.
The Chinese & Vietnamese operate from the same torture book.
It's right there. They are Han Chinese and don't consider the Uighurs as their citizens or blood-brothers.
I mean this seriously but as a lowly computer programmer is there any way we can help these poor people other than offer our sympathy?
My taxes have frequently paid for US Gov led torture. If we ever hold China accountable in a meaningful way, it won't be due to authentic moral outrage.
Interestingly your premise is a form of forever torture that forever punishes and condemns entire nations of people even if they weren't directly (or even indirectly) responsible for the actions of a small group of people.
Every American is denied the ability to have authentic moral outrage because of what a very small number of people did eg at Abu Ghraib? I disagree. That's an absurd premise and it means a nation can never change its behavior or move beyond past mistakes. In fact, your premise encourages a nation to never change, because you're forever condemned no matter what you do.
It's a collectivist punishment system. The kind of thing that has been used to apply inherited or associative morality based on nation, group or race for thousands of years. It's straight out of the old testament.
Let's examine that however. So because of things that happened in the past, or things outside of your direct control, a person or government decades or centuries later can never hold a position of "authentic moral outrage." How about people that were disgusted by acts of US torture and voted their conscience accordingly (electing Obama instead of the war hawk McCain, for example), do they get to have authentic moral outrage? Can you clarify how your all-powerful god-like moral ruling works in practice?
The French can never have authentic moral outrage because Napoleon murdered millions of people and the French did horrible things in Vietnam? Is there an expiration timer on any of this?
The Russians can never have authentic moral outrage because of what happened under the USSR and because of what Putin is doing currently?
The people of Belgium are forever condemned to never possess authentic moral outrage because of King Leopold II?
The people of Cambodia can possess no authentic moral outrage, regardless of their involvement in the genocide and that condemnation shall last an eternity.
Shall I continue? These are all intentionally extreme examples to make a very obvious point.
The world found out about Abu Ghraib, and the US was shamed, humiliated, and Obama issued an executive order specifically banning the CIA's torture techniques in 2009 in response. The NDAA of 2016 also further restricted abusive interrogations. The people of the US were widely disgusted. It was very public as a matter, it was broadcast to the American people 24/7 for months. Culturally we had a large, very public debate over it as a nation. That was for a few dozen cases of torture. The world's superpower - which needed to have zero concern for the world's opinion - was very clearly humiliated by it and took action to prevent torture in the future (and yes, one can be reasonably skeptical of that being successful; as time goes on the US should be judged by its actions and not words on the matter).
Why should a nation of people or its large government/s be comprehensively denied "authentic moral outrage" because of the actions of an exceptionally small part of the population? A plainly absurd position to take on how morality should work.
The only reason we got mad about Vietnam, Cuba, South America is not because of "Communism" as an abstract concept. It's because the government seized or threatened to seize assets. See also Pinochet. We had no problem with him.
The reason why this is relevant to China is that China has made a lot of people a lot of money. So they commit a genocide every so often. As long as it doesn't cost American capital money, we'll ignore it.
Why were people so up in arms about Cuba, but not Ethiopia? Well, Cuba is much closer, true. But the real issue was that people owned stuff in Cuba. There was no significant interest in Ethiopia.
Ok, then convince your side to submit to the UN-appointed war crimes tribunal in The Hague. As long as the The Hague Invasion Act is still in force, that claim is hollow.
This goes back to the debate between Augustine, a former good vs evil Manichean, and Pelagius. One believed that "everyone is bad" and warned against excessive hubris, while the other believed that those who choose to do evil do so out of their own free will.
In the pre-9/11 world, there was the idea that torture was a relic of the past, and we had made moral progress beyond such barbarities. But it was the leading liberal democracy in the world, rather than some third world dictatorship, that reintroduced the practice.
The United States trained the guerillas that eventually became the Vietcong in Vietnam, and the country went to war under the Gulf of Tonkin false flag. Similarly, the United States invaded Iraq under the WMD charade. In Afghanistan, it promoted the Islamist fundamentalism of the mujahideen, in order to fight the USSR friendly government that the Afghans themselves elected. The mujahideen became the Taliban, and a similar story of is true of ISIS and al-qaeda (US trained them to do their dirty work then lost control of them)
I don't think the United States is the root of all evil. But it's important to realise that the Chinese don't think of their country as an evil dictatorship, the same way that you don't view your country as "the bad guys". Rather, as St Augustine put it in his doctrine of original sin, we are all "the bad guys" and we need to reflect on the worse demons of our nature.
We have forgotten the Augustinian lessons, indulging in excessive pride and hubris, and failing to reflect on the same pattern that has been occurring cyclically for millennia.
I don't support China either - I don't believe in the "good vs evil" narrative that was alien to the Ancient Romans and Greek pagans. The idea that there's historical moral progress culminating in the values of the United States is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. In Hegel's philosophy of right, which was fashionable in Germany, he believed that history culminated in the values of the Prussian constitutional monarchy.
It's unlikely that China will become a superpower. The United States, in the next few years, will no longer hold world wide hegemony, as it seems to be distancing itself from Europe among other countries. It's also unlikely that we'll return to a bipolar world, similarly to the period of the Cold War. It's more likely that we're moving towards a multi-polar world.
The US certainly doesn't have a stellar Human Rights record in wars or other; but it's mostly because of incompetence and not as an agenda to keep one race only.
I am curious what would happen should you face those countless victims of "incompetence" and explain it to them.
They are the ones who turned a blind eye to Rwanda and gave the guy who sold the guns a top job, aren't they?
> You're black. You're not even a nier. You're an African.
On 11 January 1994, General Roméo Dallaire, commander of UNAMIR, sent his "Genocide Fax" to UN Headquarters. The fax stated that Dallaire was in contact with "a top level trainer in the cadre of Interhamwe-armed [sic] militia of MRND." The informant—now known to be Mathieu Ngirumpatse's chauffeur, Kassim Turatsinze, a.k.a. "Jean-Pierre"—claimed to have been ordered to register all Tutsi in Kigali. According to the memo, Turatsinze suspected that a genocide against the Tutsis was being planned, and he said that "in 20 minutes his personnel could kill up to 1000 Tutsis". Dallaire's request to protect the informant and his family and to raid the weapons caches he revealed was denied.
My kingdom for a little perspective.
Which might be your goal.
Also China has gone to war with and enslaved as many people as they had the capacity for. Pretending otherwise is weird.
I have no goals. I am on HN just to exchange opinions when I need a 5 min rest from a programming.
>"Also China has gone to war with and enslaved as many people as they had the capacity for. Pretending otherwise is weird."
Oh. I am sure thy did. But the end result is what counts. They sure treated their own citizens like crap. But in business of f..g up other countries I think they're bit behind comparatively. Might change in a future so we will see / or not.
It should be obvious to you that something that effects millions of people is much worse than the CIA thing that only effected a couple hundred.
I'm unclear why you or anyone else might be creating analogies in your heads. It's even less clear why you want me to have made them.
Intervening in another's country internal affairs leads to a war. UN is a nice idea, though it doesn't work in reality. To apply for an asylum, you need to leave the country. Low likelyhood of happening.
I explain why its wrong to my kids. What then?
As sad as it is, we can't do much if anything.
This isn't a problem that will just go away by wishful thinking or by being ignored.
Not necessarily. Anti apartheid campaigns for South Africa kinda worked for example.
1/ « Keep an eye on » is different than « Intervene ». We have to have satellites out there mapping this stuff in excruciating detail, and spies tracking who is responsible for what, and special forces hit them if they step out in a zone where they can be hit. The people who perpetrate this must live in fear.
2/ The UN is full of problems, but if a resolution grants universal asylum to Uighurs anywhere in the world, then at least those people will know there is somewhere they can escape to. That’s something.
3/ Your kids might one day be in a position to do something about it. Telling them why this is wrong, and why they should care, might just be the most important thing you do in your life.
I don’t want to start a big argument. I just want to say that we can all do little things that do matter collectively.
Check out the history of Brown Moses, and Bellingcat:
"Higgins' analyses of Syrian weapons, which began as a hobby out of his home in his spare time, are frequently cited by the press and human rights groups and have led to parliamentary discussion."
"Bellingcat (stylized as bell¿ngcat) is an investigative journalism website that specializes in fact-checking and open-source intelligence (OSINT). It was founded by British journalist and former blogger Eliot Higgins in July 2014. Bellingcat publishes the findings of both professional and citizen journalist investigations into war zones, human rights abuses, and the criminal underworld. The site's contributors also publish guides to their techniques, as well as case studies."
Check out some of the work being done peering into North Korea as well for ideas e.g.:
"North Korea’s Yongbyon Nuclear Center: Flood Damage Repairs Underway"
There is probably a lot to be learned from constructing various elements of an open-source intelligence pipeline that uses software to aggregate information from dissidents, analyze satellite imagery to identify concentration camps, provide encryption, translation, etc.
The ironic and actually instructive part of this is that his work was used to rationalize the Syrian war for the west, which has left an absolutely devastating trail of misery for countless millions of Syrian people.
Even more instructive is that the people responsibly for that misery all still pretend to be the good guys.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended, we'd appreciate it. The intended use is this: primarily for intellectual curiosity, only secondarily for politics, and then only in the form of curious and thoughtful conversation—not smiting enemies.
I don't think the pieces of Syria fit quite so neatly together.
> I mean this seriously but as a lowly computer programmer is there any way we can help these poor people other than offer our sympathy?
You are not a lowly computer programmer, but a person near the top of income vertical for as long as salaried people go.
The two most potent political instruments ever are the money, and firearms. You may not have the second, but certainly have first.
Saying this, people have to ask a question not who are the bigger enemies to the civilised mankind, but who are the biggest threat. Are they are the people who perpetrate genocides in parts of the world where the light doesn't shine, or the people who cover for them in the West, while living a comfy life, and enjoying all benefits of life in a civil state.
Without any hesitation I will say that while Xis, Putins, and Sisis are the biggest enemies of the civilised mankind, but the biggest threat to civil state as we know it comes from people in the West who made their ascension to power possible.
I believe the majority opinion of WW2 historians is that the war was very well preventable, or it was possible to nip it at the bud if the West wasn't stalled in its tracks by internal political sabotage by people who were not much dissimilar to those Western politicians who now flirt with rouge regimes, and sometimes directly facilitating them.
A very good reason to think to all of HN readers who were fortunate to be born in the free world.
From my lifelong misfortune with politics, I can affirm the saying that it's much, much, much more hard to "create" new power, than it is to take, or receive existing power from somebody else.
My advise, join all major political parties, and fight, fight, fight, until you can do something real, and the money you have can help you in this a lot.
> Contact your Senators to urge them to co-sponsor the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act 
> Endorse the global campaign for fashion brands to end complicity in Uyghur forced labour 
And several other things including signing petitions you can find on their website: https://uhrp.org/what-you-can-do
I'm surprised at your surprise.
Aren't there stories about improper arrest and torture quite often?
Heck, a friend of mine was improperly arrested recently (the cops lied about what he was doing) and I actually met a guy who had been tortured (soon before I met him) by a state secret police.
I also knew a Holocaust survivor. I can't be the only person who thinks states behaving badly is more the norm than the exception?
Interestingly, you didn't mention Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc. where minorities are actually being killed, raped or converted.
A separate country to 300 million SC/ST is the solution to Untouchability in South Asia https://chng.it/kJphRWWBRr #HathrasCase
Lots of things made me angry when I was in my teens and 20s that I look back on now in my 50s and understand much better (eg, I was furious at the lack of US intervention in Bosnia. I now understand much better the reasons driving non-interventionism, and I'm able to see the compassion driving it, even if I don't always agree.).
Edit: And BTW, it wasn't I who flagged your response, despite the ad hominem. But those things rarely play well on HN, as I'm sure you know.
This normalizes decorum over inconvenient truths.
@dang shadowbanned me for accurately discussing the propaganda warfare happening in US vs China relations, and the way current neo-Marxist riots tie into a long history of subversive movements.
By all accounts they appear to be justified in doing so.
> The Muslim community has a very us vs them mentality which is not healthy for national unity that china CCP desires.
Perhaps the CCP should find a model for national unity that Uighurs would overwhelmingly give their enthusiastic consent to.
> China has a 5000 year old culture and a majority of people experienced significant hardships and starvation in the last century.
>This Uigher generation is suffering so the future uigher can fit into the society better.
What relevance does the historical suffering of the Han? population have to do with the current, actively manufactured suffering of the Uighurs, beyond bitter vindictiveness?
> They emphasize national unity (vs individalism) in a way western people cannot even begin to understand, but belonging to such a group is not entirely bad. This Uigher generation is suffering so the future uigher can fit into the society better.
"Prepare to be assimilated; resistance is futile"
"Surrender or die."
There's a reason the Borg were considered villains.
Seriously, this is some black-mirror take on how society should function. Fascism doesn't even begin to cut it:
Fit in, or die. Be the same as everyone else or die. No originality allowed or die. Sounds like a lovely world you envision living in.
The chinese actions are atrocious but an accusation of saying that holocaust level genocide is getting advocated here is a huge difference.
You can tell him he's wrong because you believe that the chinese are conducting genocide. You do not start a witch hunt by accusing him of advocating genocide which he obviously is not doing.
What we do know is this... we have people on the inside of Hong Kong and we know that in Hong Kong China is not conducting mass genocide or opening up re-education camps in Hong Kong. This is different from what's happening with the Uighurs... we need to know what prompted China to react much more heavily against the Uighurs (as opposed to Hong Kong) and we also need to confirm whether the alleged "genocide" is real.
The post that was called disgusting is indeed a valid alternative viewpoint quite possibly from someone closer to the situation than your average white guy.
Also keep the outrage in check. Even a modern western country in 2020 is capable of this crap. The US has their own detention camps open today. It exists using a technique called extraordinary rendition to get around American laws. The camp is called gitmo and there are some real pictures about some really horrible shit that went down at gitmo.
"We don't know what's going on" is a lie. We know. Some people chose to ignore / justify. You are sadly in good company when it comes to the history of denying genocide.
I'm not lying, but I could be mistaken. I'm not mistaken about the rape of nanking or the holocaust. There are pictures of mass slaughter, graves and even severed heads on the pikes of japanese soldiers to confirm the depravity and existence of these events. My own grandfather witnessed the events and tells me first hand accounts of the rivers of blood in nanking. The japanese denial is sickening, and you accusing me, a descendent of victims of such slaughter, as someone who denies genocide displays incredible immaturity.
I am not denying genocide, I am simply saying extreme accusations need extreme evidence. So your next task is clear:
Show me pictures of the same slaughter that you claim the chinese are doing right now. I promise you I will do a full 180 if you show me some actual pictures of the massacre that you claim is happening right at this very moment. Show me some dead bodies, executions... etc.. etc.
You are the one setting the bar at "mass slaughter". Sorry, that wasn't and isn't what is being discussed. Mass interment, violence, rape, retaliation against one's family for political crimes, forced sterilization, etc. The evidence for that is legion, you have access to the same information I do. Look it up yourself (if you care).
These are your words:
>You are sadly in good company when it comes to the history of denying genocide.
So now you're claiming we aren't even talking about genocide? That there is no mass slaughter? Seems to me ur changing the subject.
Look, mass sterilization is bad. But genocide? Under that logic anyone who ever got an abortion is a killer. Or maybe anyone who wanted to have a baby but changed their mind...
Colloquially when people use the word genocide they use it in place of mass slaughter, that is the intuition behind the word and that's how people use it. If you use the word genocide in place of mass sterilization, you and the organization who decides to use/define the word in that way are manipulating the perspective of the situation because Everyone is well aware of the intuitive meaning of the word "genocide". When people hear "genocide" they hear "slaughter" and "killing"... mass sterilization is the last thing they think about.
Here's a thought. Rather than use the word "genocide" why don't you just say "mass sterilization." Don't throw down a word that can be mistaken for slaughter for your own manipulative gain. You could have easily, very easily clarified your intent earlier, but you didn't because you are manipulative, or you don't know common colloquial English.
I vote that you're just being manipulative. The rest of your English grammar seems fine, you just want to start something rather than be level headed.
You're massively out of line with "Someone doesn't know an english word and is misusing it all over the place." and "I vote that you're just being manipulative. The rest of your English grammar seems fine, you just want to start something rather than be level headed."
In addition to this the technical terms are all different so it's not like I've been proven wrong. My oxford definition actually incorporates the word "killing" so we can argue about technicalities till forever or we can not be stupid and admit that when people hear or use the word "genocide" they think about "killings" "murder" and mass "slaughter"
Under the other definitions basically an abortion clinic becomes a genocide clinic. We don't associate abortion clinics with genocide... nothing is out of line here At all.
You guys can cite the UN definition of genocide but nobody uses that definition in the english language, it's really too big a of an essay for someone to hold in their head. Realistically when you see the word in an article or uttered by a person it's using the oxford definition which is the exact context we're in right now.
No, we don't, and the Merriam-Webster definition  captures this fact: “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group”.
As does the Britannica  definition: “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race.”
While killing the individual members of a group is a common mechanism of genocide, the killing the “-cide” in the term refers to is the killing or destruction of the group as a group, not the killing of the individuals who constitute the group.
Yes, it's exactly genocide. Preventing a people from reproducing is quite an effective way of wiping them out as a people.
I'm done here.
I am going off first hand accounts and confirmed facts. What are you doing?
>The chinese actions are atrocious but
"concentration camps are bad but.." No but. There's no but there.
> holocaust level genocide
No one said that. This is the logical fallacy you are committing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
> you believe that the chinese are conducting genocide.
Reducing this to a "two sides" issue is shameless deflection. What part of the dozens of reporting done on Xinjiang do you think is false, and what facts are you basing that on?
Genocide is a very serious accusation. The word is thrown around in this thread in a trivial way as if you can accuse anyone of advocating it. Let me spell it out for you: Pretty much no one advocates this. You're coming at him saying "I never said it was at holocaust levels" as if that makes a huge difference. This is mass human slaughter we're talking about.
He described it with the word "Holocaust" for two reasons. To detrivialize the usage of the word and because I've seen numbers being thrown around as if millions of people were exterminated.
>"concentration camps are bad but.." No but. There's no but there.
There is indeed a but. The US put the japanese in concentration camps in the past. This does not raise them to the same position as Hitler gassing the jews.
>I am going off first hand accounts and confirmed facts. What are you doing?
Confirmed facts of genocide? Show me some pictures. Show some proof. The seriousness of the accusation demands serious evidence.
>Reducing this to a "two sides" issue is shameless deflection. What part of the dozens of reporting done on Xinjiang do you think is false, and what facts are you basing that on?
He's reducing the issue to an "all sides" issue. Insulting an alternative view point is reducing it to a "one side" issue.
Let's keep things utterly clear here. It is completely wrong to build internment camps. Completely. But it is also completely and utterly wrong to silence another view point and accuse someone of genocide.
You don't solve an issue by attacking the people who created the internment camps without understanding the situation which caused them deploy such drastic procedures in the first place.
Oh I'm well aware (almost) no one will come out explicitly and endorse concentration camps. What they do is almost more insidious, they justify them. They rationalize them. They spin them as something they are not.
I'd rather someone be an open Nazi than to perform their mental gymnastics in public to avoid challenging their world view on something as simple as "mass interment camps are bad." "Well you see they aren't interment camps...they were criminals anyways...how dare you compare a work camp to a death camp?"
It's sickening, all of it. Your spin of "it's not the same as the holocaust" (no one said it is) and "yeah but whatabout the US!" is sadly par for the course.
There is a huge difference here. When you say genocide, it is equivalent to holocaust. When you say concentration camp it's equivalent to gitmo at worst or the japanese concentration camps. Both could be happening but one is drastically worse than the other and genocide needs confirmation.
> The US put japanese people in in concentration camps and most US citizens supported it.
Amazing, your lack of self-awareness. Your deflection and whataboutism can't even let up for a second. In case you need yet another reminder, this thread is about Chinese camps.
> There is a huge difference here. When you say genocide, it is equivalent to holocaust
You are saying this. You. You are pushing the argument to the extreme ("everything is a holocaust") to discredit what is actually being said ("these are mass interment camps with systemic violence and arbitrary punishment"). It's an argumentation technique that doesn't work when the other person knows what's happening.
Genocide is mass killings, not mass sterilizations. If you get very technical you can call a sterilization a killing but that's just a deliberate misuse of the term.
When someone hears the word genocide they hear slaughter. They don't hear oh that population was sterilized. Let's not be stupid about this.
We as americans vehemently disagree, but a chinese citizen, after witnessing several terrorist attacks by the Uighur which slaughtered hundreds of chinese people, will obviously have a different perspective. This isn't a one time isolated incident... these were multiple attacks occurring with no end in sight.
Rather than not minding insults to opinions you disagree with, why don't you have an open mind and post why you disagree rather then insult the person you disagree with?
You sound like a Han Chinese. Imagine yourself in their shoes. There's lots of Chinese diaspora in other countries. What if one of the countries decided to do that with the Han Chinese? Would you still side with the host country?
Imagine yourself in the shoes of the person who was killed by a bombing. Imagine yourself knowing family members or your kids getting slaughtered by these terrorist attacks.
Let me put it to you clearly. The situation is complex, no side is right, but to bury the action of one side and justify the actions of another because it's convenient for some stupid US-China rivalry is the wrong way to view it.
I'm not saying either side was right. I'm saying it's wrong to comment on how this is disgusting. It is a valid opposing perspective, just like how your perspective is valid.
What isn't valid is insults and a mass mob mentality.
I am not saying that jihadist extremism is not to blame. But I don't think an entire Uighur culture is to blame either and especially not Uighur people who are being victimised.
>I'm not saying either side was right. I'm saying it's wrong to comment on how this is disgusting.
It's not wrong at all to comment on this. What the Chinese govt is doing is plain disgusting and they should be held accountable just like anybody who is supporting them. We hold extremist groups who carry out attacks responsible, so why not a racist, genocidal govt who instigated the whole thing anyway?
When someone bombs your family you take the time to find out why they were bombed and try to understand the otherside before shutting down the otherside.
But when someone voices their own opinion. You just call their opinion disgusting and accuse them of genocide.
The man is obviously not supporting genocide. If the chinese are supporting genocide than the man obviously doesn't know but an accusation of genocide needs extreme proof and right now there's only rumors.
Maybe what's really going on is you're selectively applying your empathy to whatever suits your preconceived viewpoint.
I didn't say I would try to understand the side that bombed my family. Those would be the terrorists. I said I would get to the bottom of what happened and why it happened. I would not condemn an entire people or a culture (unless of course every single one of them believed the same thing as the terrorists) to seek some sort of sick justice. Please don't invent things I didn't say.
>The man is obviously not supporting genocide. If the chinese are supporting genocide than the man obviously doesn't know but an accusation of genocide needs extreme proof and right now there's only rumors.
It's not rumours. There is genuine proof. My own government declared it as genocide after investigation (Canada).
>But when someone voices their own opinion. You just call their opinion disgusting and accuse them of genocide.
My comment was directed at the Chinese govt and whoever supports them (obviously knowingly). I didn't call his opinion disgusting. Please learn to comprehend at a level above that of the sixth grade.
>Maybe what's really going on is you're selectively applying your empathy to whatever suits your preconceived viewpoint.
Yeah and you are selectively applying your generosity in trying to understand those you disagree with to whatever suits your needs.
I didn't invent anything you said. I'm telling you what you should do.
>It's not rumours. There is genuine proof. My own government declared it as genocide after investigation (Canada).
Alright. Show me the pictures of the mass killings and the slaughter that's occurring in China. I want to see pictures of the executions and the graves. We have pictures that corroborate the events of Nanking and the holocaust show me the pictures of the genocide that's occurring in China.
>My comment was directed at the Chinese govt and whoever supports them (obviously knowingly). I didn't call his opinion disgusting. Please learn to comprehend at a level above that of the sixth grade.
This whole topic is about a comment calling the original topic disgusting. My comment is defending the original comment. You attacking me is agreeing with the premise. Stay on topic.
>Yeah and you are selectively applying your generosity in trying to understand those you disagree with to whatever suits your needs.
I'm not. Show me the pictures and proof of the "genocide" and I'll do a 180. I'll believe you.
>Alright. Show me the pictures of the mass killings and the slaughter that's occurring in China. I want to see pictures of the executions and the graves.
Again you've shown yourself to be no more mature than a sixth grader. First, educate yourself about definition of a genocide. It's not all "mass killings and graves" that you are lusting after. A genocide can be a systematic destruction of a people through incarceration, torture, humiliation, destruction of language, cultural practices etc. simply based on their race, culture, or religion. Same thing that's happening to Uighurs. Vox did an expose a couple months ago using satellite imagery to find hundreds of mass detention and slave labor facilities corroborated by statements from victims.
You really do should do some reading with empathy. Maybe you can learn something: https://www.vox.com/2020/7/28/21333345/uighurs-china-internm...
A genocide is systematic destruction of people through killing. That is the oxford official definition and that is the colloquial meaning of the term. When people hear the word they don't think torture, they don't think cultural assimilation, they don't think birth control.
They think slaughter.
Using the word genocide in the way you define it.... makes gitmo become a genocide camp. You're own civilized neighbor the US of A is also basically conducting genocide of middle easterners under your highly convenient definition.
But I don't need to tell you this. You know this already. You throw down that word with the full knowledge that whenever you use that word people will think mass killings. You only fall back on a convenient definition when someone calls you out on the technicality. This is what the articles you read do to manipulate the sentiment, and you accept it because you enjoy calling China a country that is conducting mass genocide. You enjoy perpetuating China with a reputation that is an extreme version of the truth. This is what's going on.
I would tell you to educate yourself but the mind is not only limited by what it is capable of learning but also by genetics. Your limitations are of the latter kind, there is nothing for you to learn because you are already aware of what you're doing.
There's nothing left to argue on the main topic because we both never disagreed that detention camps exist. We can argue about the definition of the word "genocide" and about how your misguided brain works though, I'm sure there's still a disagreement on those two areas.
With regards to Gitmo, you are again purposefully lying. There are plenty of arabs and muslims living in USA with no problems. We have comedians (Hasan Minaj) making fun of Trump. Which Chinese, let along uighur, can make fun of Xi in China?
Now since we both agreed that the detention camps exist, and also the women of that group are being sterilized against their will, it meets criteria b, and d of the Genocide under the UN charter.
As for my genes, they're full capable of learning and not limited by brainwashing as you have been subjected to. Sorry for you and the rest of the CCP shills.
It's abhorrent, on the level of holocaust denial.
You're telling me that a holocaust level genocide is happening in China right now? Serious accusations require serious evidence. Prove it. Something like pictures of mass graves like the ones you've seen in the holocaust or the rape of nanking is sufficient for me to do a complete 180.
What's going on here is mob mentality and you're part of it.
I find it quite hard to believe that there is not any degree of distinct Islamic culture that has developed in France (both in the sense of present France and the broader sense of historical French territory) under the influence on broader French culture.
And by “hard to believe”, I mean entirely implausible.
This is also the literal mantra of ISIS. "Muslims will always be the 'other' in Europe, and we need to make sure they aren't even integrated."
In that way the far right and militant islam are on the same page. Neither wants a successful integration.
An observation which tangentially reminds me of: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/24/malcolm-x-...
Where in this article do you read anything that points to a genocide?
Home made bombs dropped in markets, driving trucks in to crowds of people, random knife attacks. Doesn't sound unfamiliar here in Europe. They're all reading from the same book.
What China is doing is pretty horrible but it's not like Xi woke up one day and decided he didn't like Uighurs.
Hundreds of camps have been spotted, plenty of interviews given by ex-detainees. No doubt Uighurs are being detained en masse but I wonder how many don't ever make it out.
"The specific intent element defines the purpose of committing the acts: "to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such". The specific intent is a core factor distinguishing genocide from other international crimes, such as war crimes or crimes against humanity.
In 2007, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) noted in its judgement on Jorgic v. Germany case that, in 1992, the majority of legal scholars took the narrow view that "intent to destroy" in the CPPCG meant the intended physical-biological destruction of the protected group, and that this was still the majority opinion. But the ECHR also noted that a minority took a broader view, and did not consider biological-physical destruction to be necessary, as the intent to destroy a national, racial, religious or ethnic group was enough to qualify as genocide."
We can't do anything decisive to help the Uighurs without ripping apart Chinese sovereignty and causing even more collateral damage, so the best we can do is once again find our principles. We will need them to unite us and guide us through the economic pain and chaos that a proper solution like embargoing China would require.
Yes we can. Boycott CCP controlled businesses, their manufactured goods and services. Ensure strict sanctions are levied on CCP members. Ban travel of CCP members to and from countries that respect the rule of Law.
But nope. We would rather, like cowards, keep our mouth shut and do nothing while this genocide continuous unabated.
If your personal boycotts help make you feel better about the ongoing genocide, that's great! I, for one, would prefer a solution that works.
Tariffs can cause a lot of damage.
That's typically not worked in other countries. For example, see Russia, which has been under exactly those kinds of targeted sanctions and yet which continues to openly murder opponents of the Putin regime across the globe.
Russia is almost a semi-hermit State unlike China. Russia was never an "export powerhouse". China is. Russia doesn't have the kind of population China has. Russian population is less than half of USA. Sanctions don't have a major impact on Russia as US was never its major trading partner. But sanctions on China will be a huge blow as US was China's main trading partner. You can't compare Russia and China. They are not the same.
Breaking up a regime capable of doing monstrous things has been done before q.v. europe 1945 .
Doing that against a nuclear state is impossible, as such military action is out of the picture. That leaves only economic action.
its in the post you replied to, c'mon man
Breaking up the Chinese government is not on the table.