Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai arrested under national security law
reuters.com
reuters.com
China has basically given up any semblance of autonomy for Hong Kong. It's clear who runs the show here. Carrie Lam is universally despised (her approval ratings make Trump look like Mother Theresa). Nobody respects authority anymore. It's clear in daily life.
Hundreds of thousands of HKers have been migrating out of China for decades.
I'm unclear why people expected HK to ever be autonomous permanently?
No one did, but the treaty said it would semi-autonomous for 50 years. These actions are 27 years early, so they didn't even keep their end of the deal for half the time they promised.
Also, a lot can happen in three decades, and one could have held out hope that the PRC could have undergone some kind of liberal reforms before the treaty expired.
There is historical evidence that suggests that liberal values flourish better with prosperity, just as environmental and anti-pollution awareness increases once people rise above subsistence.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/opinion/hong-kong-china-n...
“Do My Tweets Really Threaten China’s National Security?“
History repeats itself. Just 30 years ago the Soviet Union was dissolved. If you study this dissolution process, you see that demonstrations and the ambition to sovereignty was nothing new in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, but in comparison to the 50s, 60s and 70s, Gorbachev did not use military force to prevent countries from splitting off.
If China lets HK go independent, there is a chance of a chain reaction: Guangdong, Xinjiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia.. just to name a few. This would mean to total collapse of the PRC.
But in comparison to the USSR, China's economy is highly intertwined with the global economy.
I would even go that far and say that a successful HK independence movement could have the chance to lead to a total collapse of the global economy on a scale that makes this Corona recession look like a Kindergarden.
Don't get me wrong. I LOVE HK, I lived and worked there. I have also lived and worked in Mainland China. It is sad to see that HK will likely become just a random Chinese city and lose its uniqueness. I just wished that there would be a mutual process of this unification and China would move slower towards it, while HK would accept that the China of 2047 will look different from China today.
But HKers aren't even asking for full independence. They want to retain the democracy and freedom they've had so far.
And the parallels with Soviet Union's collapse is debatable. At that point Soviet Union was on the brink of economic disaster, while China is at the height of their military and economic power.
China wanted HK to be special and successful, to use it as a showcase for the 'one country two systems' model. Now China just want to not lose HK. Huge change in thinking.
> In 1946, shortly after the war, critical voices were raised against colonialism. Governor Sir Mark Young proposed a 48-member Municipal Council with significant competence to govern, one-third elected by non-Chinese, one third by Chinese institutions and one-third by Chinese individuals, known as the "Young Plan", believing that, "to counter the Chinese government's determination to recover Hong Kong, it was necessary to give local inhabitants a greater stake in the territory by widening the political franchise to include them."[9] The reform failed because of much resistance from expatriate companies, a new conservative and mistrustful governor, and London's fears of Hong Kong becoming a political battleground between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China (CPC).
You miss out the last part, the British governor would actually listen to the people.
HK had almost 95% of what defines as democracy, freedom of assembly and speech, inclusiveness and equality, membership, consent, right to life and minority rights. It is only missing some part of voting.
PRC has total control over mainland China. There is 0 risk of fragmentation.
HK is a separate entity in every sense, so is Taiwan.
USSR collapsed because its economic and political system crumbled from the inside, enabling Poland et. al. to get out from under their thumb, which is what they always wanted to do.
If China had economic turmoil, mainland would stay intact in one way or another.
If the CCP were to collapse, it'd be from the inside. Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan always wanted independence. It's difficult enough to unify a small group so just imagine with 1.4 billion people.
Taiwan is independent.
Control in China is tenuous on some level - if the CCP fails, it might be total chaos.
Tibet however, doesn't have any power. They are aboriginals crushed under the weight of Han Imperialism. I mean, if China was in economic turmoil for a decade, and Han leadership was weak, or had the self awareness to allow for some autonomy, and there was 'world pressure on them' - possibly Tibet could make a break.
But it's not like Poland under USSR.
Just like every ruler of China in history, whoever gets 'some control' will want 'all of it' and mainland would probably be easy to unite, due to historical facts.
So barring serious collapse and revolution, it looks like HK is just PRC and that's that, and Taiwan will probably remain independent so long as US and EU exist in any material form.
But who can predict the future.
Secondly, if we are looking at history, why would we look at USSR instead of the history of China? There is never a regime change until a civil war broke out, and there is always blood involved.
Now China has certainly been cooking the hell out of the books but given the other sides of transactions with the outside world we have an idea of the of the real as quite large.
I run an obfs4 Tor bridge on an old Linux Mint box that's just sitting around in my home.*
The bare minimum thing that Chinese and any other country's citizens need is information, and freedom of information. This is where tech truly, truly helps.
[*] Yes, they may first need to connect to a working VPN, but that's OK, to really become free they can then connect to a Tor bridge like mine.
If however you mean not being involved with the Tor project in any capacity whatsoever, I really insist that that's the wrong, and a very dangerous anti-freedom philosophy to take.
At some point, we have to take a stand and defend the right to absolute encryption for anybody, no questions asked. Why? Because this is the normal human experience.
Privacy is normal and healthy. Having everything you do recorded and stored by others permanently, is not normal or healthy.
The more you use and promote the use of encryption, privacy and anti-censorship technologies in benign and good contexts like mine, the less it's dismissed as an automatic indicator of crime.
As far as I'm concerned, I consider myself lucky that I have legal freedom of association in my own country so that I can even safely run this Tor bridge. As to the court of public opinion on the social level in my community, all I need to do is explain this important humanitarian use case that I do it for.
https://twitter.com/mrkoot/status/1292358618004828160?s=20
Also promote bitcoin in China. CCP survives on the money it can threaten and coerce out of its popularity. Bitcoin removes people's assets from CCP control
Here is the article https://www.zdnet.com/article/china-is-now-blocking-all-encr...
I'm not aware of any precedents to date, but a rigorous scientific record of this kind would be extremely valuable as a reference proof against future gaslighting and dubious arguments.
The process is already under way, anecdotally some normally outgoing folks (Hongkongers and involved) are reluctant to post this on social media or discuss it with you unless they trust the channel.
It doesn't matter whether you personally think oppressing human freedom is terrible or not—your work will not be any less useful. Its results may even challenge your own subjective opinion on the matter.
Why do you believe this? It is very much not true. If you wanted to study, for instance, how societies collapse, you don't need to be impartial about the notion of societal collapse. If you wanted to study war, you don't need to be impartial to war.
The fact that science reveals truth even though it can start with partiality is why the scientific method is the gold standard.
A sad day for HK. I hope the world does not let him be detained indefinitely, like what has happened to Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo.
Think of a US media tycoon who went to China to meet with the Secretary of State, used the media to incite riots in his country, appeared on the streets of protest, and publicly called on China to intervene in the United States. What are the consequences of this?
Please read more media from a different standpoint and think about this event in another way.
Because of the Chinese culture of "national unity", intervention in Hong Kong is like intervention in China.
I don’t think the analogy of Guam is appropriate. As a strategic priority, Guam is occupied by many countries. Now as a US military base, residents have no right to vote.
Hong Kong belonged to China a long time ago. The British captured him through war in 1842 and returned it to China in 1997. Hong Kong currently retains its own administrative system and will fully integrate into China in the future.
I am not very familiar with the history of the United States, and I cannot offer a better analogy. If the Guam helps to understand the situation, I have no objection. After all, what I want to say is what Jimmy Lai did.
That would be a wonderful thing if my government were currently persecuting 1 million people solely based on their religious and cultural identity. The consequences would be carried by hope.
Chinese people who know technology can read these reports, and I can say that most of them will not believe them. Because the CCP has always promoted that 56 ethnic groups are one family. If these things happen, they will spread locally and cause riots. Note that media control has never completely prevented the spread of the incident, only weakened.
Because Xinjiang has suffered terrorist attacks, his security measures are higher than other provinces. For example, citizens have to show their ID cards to enter the supermarket, but this is the same for everyone.
About the skills training school, I once had doubts about what facility it is. After watching the BBC interview, I relieved my doubts, because even if they were looking for it with a magnifying glass, the scariest place was just the bathroom with the lights off. [1] If officials prevent them from viewing anything, they will put it on the show.
In summary, I do not believe that the CCP persecutes Uyghurs. I think the media played a big role in our differences of opinion. So I suggest watching more media with different standpoint. For example, I often watch English media, but Westerners rarely read Chinese media. Fortunately, with Google Translate, language should no longer be a problem.
[1] https://medium.com/@sunfeiyang/breaking-down-the-bbcs-visit-...
But what if you don't want to be in the family? In the west we have that freedom to be different.
We also have the freedom to say the equivalent of Bush did 9/11 : on June 4 1989 the CCP massacred thousands.
Now the point of one big family is that the stability of the family, keeping everything going together peacefully means you don't rock the boat, you have to not speak out about how your uncle is a criminal. One big family ensures family members voluntarily censor themselves and consider those saying June 1989 Tianamen Square as literal existential threats to the stability of the family. Where in the west we can say Trump is part of a global conspiracy to X,y,z in China to do the same means attacking the very identity and stability of your own person, your bio family, your town and your nation. The story that is believed is that this stability was won through so much bloodshed. Anything must be done to stop rocking the boat. Chinese people really cannot be free as they don't know what it is. They see HK as an alcoholic daughter that needs to be treated to get well and join the rest of the family. Same with the Muslims. They are both different and in China difference is a fundamental threat.
It's fascinating.
Diversity is hard to swallow, given our tribalistic nature, but we have no choice but to foster and protect it, now that we're hyper globalised.
China's action to standardise and promote monoculture is a big failure that will eventually collapse in the future. It's just a question of when.
Xinjiang has more mosques than the whole United States. It's hypocritical to call China anti-muslim. At least we don't forbid muslims to enter our country. And we haven't ever bombarded their homelands.
What we're doing to the Uygurs is to help them earn more and lead a better life. Many Uygurs migrated to other provinces and opened up noodle shops. Those back at home may get along with the old ways, but the old ways don't have computers or other modernized tools and entertainments. And we want to help them understand why it is good to treat their women equally, and why it is good to live peacefully with atheists.
You think you have freedom because you know where the bottom line is. Imagine you publish a detailed crime plan. How long will the FBI come to your door?
Those in China see this and are horrified. To them, freedom and instability equal bloodshed and violence. Any rights should be given up to ensure the safety of one's family. If you have no freedom as a child you will be happier as your mother and father will look over you. teenage rebellion is also not encouraged culturally for example.
It's interesting to understand the CCP mind set. It explains the almost non sensical criticism of "freedoms" often heard. As most westerner don't understand China, similarly most mainland Chinese don't understand the west.
It also comes with great cost.
I can understand the need of diversity in a country, diversity of races, opinions, religions, etc. We want diversity too, so long as it is within our country. If by being Muslim means you want out of the country, is it for or against diversity on your part?
His Twitter account would briefly get more clicks than Trump's, and a swarm of congress-critters would fight each other for the privilege of having him hauled in front of their panel for a grueling, multi-hour session of righteous posturing, all televised live. Then the late night shows would create condensed, only slightly exaggerated but far more entertaining versions of their performance. By day four, everybody would have moved on to the next outrage du jour.
You’re the one who needs to read more and get a new perspective - all you are doing is repeating the very common, very boring mainstream Chinese opinion.
Further, it’s impossible for anything to be more vague than the HK national security law - there must be some level of maximum vagueness and China has achieved it with this law.
Edit: I see you’ve linked Nathan Rich - what a horrible source. Why don’t you link the actual law you’re talking about?
> 18 U.S. Code § 2385.Advocating overthrow of Government https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385
In fact, China has learned a lot from the United States. Before the Hong Kong National Security Law was released, some people joked that it would be better to copy the laws of the United States directly, so that many disputes can be avoided.
I think no one wants his rights to be restricted until his right to life is threatened. If a group of people say they will destroy everything until the government compromises, then the streets are destroyed, the unemployment rate rises, and relatives hate each other. Someone will accept that all this must be legally bound.
In the US, the Supreme Court balances that law against our constitutional rights, rendering it almost unenforceable. In fact, the way that law is applied is very specific, not vague at all.
Please read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States
Nathan Rich and people like him may be fun for you to watch because they confirm your worldview and reinforce your biases, but I suggest you read some real legal scholars if you're interested in actually educating yourself.
Edit: Also, getting back to the origin of this thread, nothing in US law prohibits what Jimmy Lai did. And nothing prohibited it when he did it in Hong Kong. Even besides how disgusting this law is, applying it retroactively is truly appalling.
Back to Hong Kong, the Hong Kong National Security Law is not retroactive:
> Article 39 This Law shall apply to acts committed after its entry into force for the purpose of conviction and imposition of punishment.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page%3AHong_Kong_National_Sec...
The police found evidence that he violated the law after the National Security Act was released, so they arrested him. I wait for the Hong Kong police to release more information.
YouTuber is just one of my information channels, and I also go to the websites or forums of protesters.
The President has emergency powers in existing law to regulate foreign trade in this general way, for the purpose of rapidly responding to action by hostile foreign nations executed through trade including through notionally private firms.
Trump hasn't banned TikTok yet, and the powers he is trying to use for that were given to him by Congress. It hasn't gone through courts yet, though, so you need to read more about it before making claims. This seems to be a pattern with you.
They claim it is not retroactive - but I highly doubt it. And you yourself said he was being punished for things that happened before it was in place.
In the west, we use freedoms of speech to balance the boat from one side to the other. Freedom of speech is the mechanism for stability. Freedom of speech is primarily how something is told they are wrong.
Freedoms are also why I can write: Bush destroyed the twin towers on 9 11 and killed thousands but you cannot say the CCP killed thousands on June 1989 in tiannamen square. Both events in history before many users here were even born. It's not only that it's illegal for you but censorship ensures that the boat is stable and the sea is calm. for Chinese, censorship is stability, freedom is the threat. You literally, emotionally, don't want to say those things, and you don't feel bad about it. Most westerners don't understand this. Freedom and difference to China means bloodshed and instability.
there are of course limits to freedom of speech in the west, direct calls to violence are out for example.
However encouraging protests is not encouraging violence even if the protests become violent riots later. In China protests are illegal by default because they might upset the boat potentially.
Under this negative example, people in China who yearn for the American system are already ashamed to speak up. I even suspect that the purpose of Hong Kong’s opposition parties is to prevent democratization in China.
The demonstrators have a slogan "Non Separation", which means that peaceful demonstrations and violent demonstrations are not separated. They are all part of the entire movement. Peaceful demonstrators were hijacked by violent demonstrators.
It’s not the purpose of the opposition to prevent democratization, that’s silly. The people were not “incited to riot”, they did their best to make their voices heard. But China didn’t actually want to hear their voices. And you’ve completely fallen for the propaganda. You haven’t tried to really empathize with the people losing their freedoms. You don’t understand what a nightmare it has been for them.
As a Hong Konger, I'm always amused by how much influence the CCP thinks Jimmy Lai / Apple Daily / Next Media wields.
Inciting riots? Really? Can you point to a single Apple Daily article that demonstrates this?
Apple is happy make a statement about BLM - it is cheap, doesn't cost them anything. But when it comes to things that actually harm profits and challenge shareholder responsibilities, they stay mum. We need to force Apple (and other giant corporations) to speak up about atrocities in HK and what their stance is. Before you downvote me, please, I plead you to respond about your thoughts - is there a reason why we shouldn't? Why is there no noise about this? No one seems to be protesting at Apple HQ.
Imagine:
WWDC 2021 - Opens with strong statements about how Apple supports democracy and open culture, how they appreciate people's voices and ability to think with liberty, how they inspire great people when government is of the people, by the people and for the people.
Alas - democracy will slowly erode away, chip away at a pace slow enough for normal humans like me and you to not be bothered, life goes on. One small step after another. Until you look back at the erosion and its a massive cliff.
Who are the 'we' you're referring to. Why throw a specific company under the bus like that.
Consumers pay with their wallet - may I ask what phone you have? I bet more than half the things you own are made in China.
I am sorry to throw a 1.9 trillion dollar company under the bus.
Yes, I own many made in China products. In fact, it is hard to find anything in my room that's not made in China, including books and bunch of things that I wouldn't even know. Probably the bulb's phosphor coating is manufactured in China and so are the chemicals in my stomach acid tablets.
At least at one point Google stood up for its ideals and quit Search in PRC, which I highly respect. With the criticism Google gets(some rightly so) and the stuff Apple gets away with, I wonder if they look to Apple and see the easy money they left on the table.
Considering a good chunk of the US population (15-30%?) is vocally "anti-BLM" - it is somewhat ballsy for a high-profile company to wear pro-BLM in their corporate messaging - I'm sure we've all seen people on Facebook vow to boycott Apple or other "liberal" organizations.
A vocal segment might complaint on Apple, but where would they run to, Google's Android? Google is also pro BLM. All big tech are.
That doesn't really matter. Voluntary boycotts have little effect, and there probably no enough people who are so "anti-BLM" that they'd actually follow through on a boycott for Apple to notice.
I don't think they will seize factories, as it just means every foreign company would look to exit. They will probably simply not allow them to sell their products in mainland and not give them any concessions.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/03/six-apple-product...
I suspect that Apple is moving away from China, but the reality is that doing so takes time.
We are better off letting companies quietly pull out than starting big rights that fundamentally hurt Western firms.
Let them quietly move towards the exits.
And Apple is simply hedging their bets like any responsible company would be doing in this situation. So some manufacturing capability will be moving to India et al but obviously not all and not in the short term.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/world/asia/kashmir-india-...
Cynical but this is why- it would cost them a lot, at least today. The Chinese government has zero reservations about sandbagging US corporations that publicly critique it or otherwise don't fall in line - just ask Google, Facebook, or the Houston Rockets. You wont hear a peep out of Apple until they're 100% sure they can break ties and afford any assets seized, have no personnel abroad, etc.
I'm surprised it took until very recently for Apple to start spinning-up alternative supply arrangements and manufacturing in other countries - I guess they expected that the PRC would improve their human-rights situation by now.
Is that something China could realistically do without irreparably harming themselves in the process though? It’s not just Apple’s supply chain that goes through China, it’s everybody’s. And once China demonstrates they are willing to do that, everybody is going to see a China-based supply chain as a gigantic business risk and look elsewhere. Apple can weather that kind of setback, but it would be an existential threat for most businesses and they would need to be proactive. Apple would go elsewhere and lay down the infrastructure, then everybody else would follow in their footsteps.
As far as I can see, China can throw their weight around to a certain extent but their hands are tied when it comes to stronger action because "Apple’s PR saying the wrong thing" is nowhere near as harmful to them as companies diversifying their supply chains en masse.
Interesting how Microsoft's President called for a Hippocratic oath for engineers, while dodging the real problem - decisions which have real impact are made by executives keen on maximizing bonuses.
Think of Google then. Google's exit from China achieves one thing, that is becoming irrelevant to the Chinese people, while giving its competitor a free run of the world biggest internet market.
Control through market is a trick that US has been playing since WWII. It is proven to be effective.
Not being complicit in genocide isn't enough reward by itself?
I'd say even if they relocate 100% of their manufacturing from China, they'd still stay silent because 10B of revenue per quarter is very significant to their top line.
[1]https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/apple-pulls-police-tracki... [2]https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-pulls-vpns-from-china-ap...
https://www.inc.com/glenn-leibowitz/apple-ceo-tim-cook-this-...
If you had to quantify how much Apple supporting BLM has helped decrease racism, it's probably very close to zero. Voicing their support for Hong Kong would accomplish even less. Why would they jeopardize potential billions of dollars to do so?
The CCP was always against World Peace, just look at their actions, be it in Tienanmen or against the 'others' (non-Han) in Tibet or Xianjing prior to Hong Kong. You think they would hesitate to do any of that, or worse, in Africa as its gotten in deeper over the years?
I've been convinced that we have to move away from Chinese manufacturing reliance for many reasons and have been advocating for this for nearly a decade now, which is what made me end up having to source many things I'd normally buy new on the second hand market that are made in Japan/US/EU or simply often simply do without unless absolutely unavoidable (non obsolete laptops/PC) and even then I'd buy used or repaired broken devices.
But I think it has only now become apparent to the masses that the CCP are utterly insane and suicidal. They lie about everything and nothing they say can be trusted.
I hope we use COVID as the proverbial 'straw that broke the camels back' in what we'd tolerate for mass produced, cheaply made, disposable trinkets from sweatshops using slave labour and move towards a post ;Made in China' World. People like to mock N. Korea, but I fear Xi and the CCP is worse because of how insidious and pervasive they have wielded its influence on the World. The US is guilty of this, too, but China is a violent Autocracy with a long history of erasing People and events from it's History to suit its own end: a perverse form of Powerful State-sponsored Corporatism that seems extremely dystopically Cyberpunk.
Boycotting their goods and returning manufacturing locally is the most effective, and ideally non-violent approach as we isolate and impose an embargo on the CCP until China reforms. The UK did a 180 on the Huawei 5G that essentially did what most thought was impossible and undid and pivoted the Supply Chain with an incredibly short turn-around on the matter proving it can be done if there is a resolve to do so.
With all of the massive unemployment in the US (but all over the World really) and what what will certainly be a soon to be seen retail real estate Apocalypse you'd think any sensible person (oxymoron?) running for office would put 2 and 2 together and see the obvious platform and run on that campaign and win in a landslide.
1: https://www.zdnet.com/article/unmade-the-uks-5g-reversal-spl...
For the whole world, people need to wake up too. just do some research on the Chinese textbooks from elementary school to college, and see what kind of mindsets they are instilling to their population, you will realize this is a monster.
Hong Kong and people like Mr. Lai has always done business in China and there's nothing reprehensible about that, nor is it reprehensible for any other business to legally carry on it's business in the same way. This is about individual freedom, free speech and political liberties, of which trade is one and criticising others for exercising their freedoms is the antithesis of that. Mr Lai made his fortune exercising those freedoms and I very much doubt he would say doing so now is in any way wrong. The way to fight this is by arguing and fighting for freedoms, not against them.
Why is it moral for Jimmy Lai – who was born there, grew up there, and lives there – to do business there? Are his only moral choices to be unemployed or emigrate? He needs to be economically active somewhere and that’s his home.
You don’t have to have a "partisan double standard" or bias against Apple to see the clear difference between a corporation expanding to a foreign territory and a local working in his home country.
Business that especially benefits the Chinese government in particular, or that supports their oppressive activities, sure I can see that. I think Google took a principled moral stance in refusing to provide search services in China when it was clear those services would have to enable surveillance. I don't think they did anything wrong having their Pixel phones manufactured in China.
For context my wife in mainland Chinese, though now a British citizen, we go there regularly and have family there. I spend money in China, and don't think there's anything wrong with myself, businesses, or 'corporations' doing so either whatever we think of the CCP. So this sort of selective virtue posturing really rubs me up the wrong way.
One of these is an economic necessity and one is not. People generally don’t have a choice but to participate in their local economy. Apple has a choice to participate in the Chinese economy. That’s the difference.
> This smacks as a pretty partisan double standard
> I have to wonder what you have against Apple
> this sort of selective virtue posturing
Can you make your point without being insulting and accusatory? It’s possible for people to disagree about this without one side being a bad actor.
Now trade boycotts and restrictions can be justified in some circumstances. I’m not a fundamentalist, but pushing the responsibility on individuals, and doing so in a blatantly asymmetrical and partisan way to push a clearly unrelated agenda (why Apple in particular, really?) is reprehensible and I make no apology for saying so.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/hardware/the-i-in-...
July 2020.
Now imagine five million Chinese hearing they now have lost their job because Apple "appreciates their voice." (first result for "Apple created jobs in China," I did not verify the number) I'm sure their reaction will be to cry out for democracy.
Meanwhile, Apple will undoubtedly move their operations to one of the many democracies that also have a terrible human rights record.
But it is really disappointing to see all the brands I'm using are feeding this regime. So disappointing.
For the mainland Chinese' perspective, it's just HK people's "privilege" being stripped, HK's special status are gone and just like another average Chinese city so what's the outcry?
> "While China is also an important market for Microsoft, Smith explained that they had to step back from setting up a data center there because of the legal and security issues that it could create for their Chinese users. “You need to know what principles you hold fundamental”, he added."
Also worth noting that it is not always a simple black and white. Yes there are clear examples, but lots of Chinese companies do honest business and don't want to hurt anyone. And what is the dividing line for a potential boycott? Do companies all over the world have to meet US labor standards before you'll buy from them? Do their host governments need to meet a particular definition of liberalism? Can you come up with concrete definitions that don't exclude the US?
You may have all sorts of answers to those questions, and I hope you do your part in voting with your wallet along those moral lines. I point them out only to illustrate that they aren't EASY questions, and certainly aren't easy in the context of big movements like trade deals, when hundreds or thousands of local jobs are at stake.
China uses HK to access world markets, to launder their money etc. - ending that ability would really hurt them a lot.
World nations have no qualms investing in HK entities, for PRC entities it's just a world of confusion.
HK is PRC so no more special privileges.
On the contrary.
https://imgur.com/gallery/WFl43ZX
The world is benefiting from HK more than China.
HK is how PRC accesses the world's financial markets, we need to shut that off and apply the same rules to HK companies as we do PRC.
Just keep this possibility in mind
As a Chinese living in the US, reading China related news/comments is like watching FOX, or Trump watching CNN. Maybe I am also biased, but that's my feeling.
An average American has no reason to hate on China, but it doesn't mean we can't stand up for the ethnic groups that are being oppressed within China's borders. The congressional testimonies by the Uyghurs refugees is truly terrifying.
Doing business with China literally means you are in support of their government's actions. T-shirts, medical masks, a regular bottle of ketchup, its all made from slave labor in Xinjiang.
Similar to how Russia murders defectors [0], it’s not a good idea to be an expat and criticize China. It is an authoritarian regime, bottom line.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvi...
For example, Julian Assange, Kim Dotcom, and Richard O'Dwyer were all prosecuted for crimes committed outside the US.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/01/china/hong-kong-activists-arr...
R.I.P Westphalian sovereignty
> R.I.P Westphalian sovereignty
This reminds me of our arrest (well, Canada's arrest at our demand) of Meng Wanzhou.
>"Trudeau also rejected the idea of a prisoner swap for Meng Wanzhou — eldest daughter of Huawei’s billionaire founder Ren Zhengfei — saying an exchange would “demonstrate to China that they can just arrest Canadians and get what they want out of Canada.” "
Calling it "bank fraud" is just a way of avoiding the question of what she did that was wrong. Who's arresting Anish Kapoor and his co-conspirators for committing fraud against Stuart Semple?
It's not like she was simply on vacation buying tourist kitsch in Tehran or selling Hwawei equipment to Iranian companies. I believe the allegation is that both the equipment export and the payment sides of the transactions touched US soil and violated US law.
The validity of the iran embargo does not play a lot into this.
USA arrests, say Islamic terrorists, for conduct that occurred outside USA. If you incite acts against USA you will get charged no matter where you are.
The russian who ran an african "security" company, just before Erik Prince started his post-Blackwater african project, was arrested in thailand and sent to the US.
(This is probably a good place to remind any HK'ers with piles of the ready, who have not already invested in Vancouver, that Subic Bay is no longer a US naval base, but instead offers condos and a yacht harbour, all within cruising distance of HK.)
Before handover, HK police would come in pairs, with at least one english and one cantonese speaker. My (very pale and blonde) friend's hobby was to approach the cantonese speaking cop, who would gesticulate wildly pointing at their partner ... and ask a question in decent cantonese.
I've never really seen such personally. People occasionally petition the central government due to grievances, but those people are heavily monitored, strongly discouraged, and later suffer negative repercussions (I know one such individual personally).
There are occasionally protests regarding local issues: housing demolition, environmental problems. They are not allowed to persist. I've never seen these in person.
I used to very occasionally see graffiti critical of the government, but I don't think I've see such in 5+ years. I figure the omnipresence of the security cameras have discouraged this.
I once received a robocall from the Falun Gong critiquing the government. I also occasionally see Falun Gong messages stamped on paper currency.
That's about it. I'm curious about the specifics of the case(s) about which you've heard.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2008/08/13/china-police-detain-woul...
http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2011/11/enemy-of-monarchy-...
This obviously doesn't change the fact that the CPC at the time, like the CPC of today, is a dictatorial organization that should never be supported. But the quotes in your post very much play into the "evil conspiracy" angle, and I think it's important to tell history in a way that reflects the actual power dynamics instead of cloak-and-dagger tales.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign
> The fact that a lot of the criticism that was made by the citizens was considerably more fundamental than even Mao had expected eventually eroded Mao's position to the point where he was forced to back down.
IIRC, Mao expected the policy to bolster the regime and show how the people genuinely supported it. That didn't happen. Since the goal wasn't to actually let the people express alternative views, they cracked down hard.
I agree it probably wasn't "comic book evil conspiracy," but it's still a good illustration of how risky CCP offers of freedom of speech are.
I have not (over 20 years) had an open political conversation about the party in China and I would never ask my friends there to entertain it even in the US. There is no point. Even in the US I would only discuss US politics, although they often seemed to be effectively related.
I will say that one of the formative descriptions of Chinese history was in the summer palace next to a statue of an emperor (Ming?) who had commited suicide upon being overthrown... he was by account terrible at ruling so I asked why there was a ;large statue. The answer was that by killing himself and not forcing the soldiers to fight and mandarins to destroy records he had maintained stability. This may be apocryphal, but the stories people tell about themselves are very illuminating.
There is definitely a cultural barrier there, around what "politics" even means and the role it should play. Most Chinese people are very jaded in general, and consider all politics, in China and abroad, to be nothing but an expression of entrenched power. As a result, democracy is often seen as an unachievable ideal that also doesn't exist in the west, particularly not in the USA.
In effect, this also means that Westerner's questions about Chinese politics can appear nonsensical or even naive to Chinese people. This is also why people are more likely to talk about corruption, as that is an evil that is considered possible to fight against.
It's the same reason foreign businesses struggle so much in China. If you aren't friendly with the necessary bureaucrats and your Chinese competition is, you'll find yourself blockaded perpetually for the most bullshit reasons.
(This reads as a criticism and almost a "well, aktshually" kind of a post, but I truly don't intend it as such. If anything, it's a stronger warning to Chinese ex-pats: be very careful what you say because the regime's tentacles are numerous and reach far. Not that Chinese citizens don't already know that, though.)
Interpret these how you wish, because they are interpreting these how they wish.
Back when it was the 1 child policy, only the Han had to follow it. The Uighurs and other minorities did not.
Now, everyone has to follow the 2 child policy.
>> Interpret these how you wish, because they are interpreting these how they wish.
> How does force sterilizing of Uighurs fit into a common destiny?
I believe the "common destiny" the GP was referring to is living under the control of the CCP.
While the policy doesn’t exist anymore, it’s not about the policy, but who has the right to decide whether you’re allowed to have children.
[1] https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2019/08/30/hong-kong-activist...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/us/hong-kong-protests-col...
Not when your Education system is literal State propaganda and they deny access to the Internet due to the specific fear of subversive acts, also known as: personal research.
It's one thing to hold an opinion and argue from that POV in honest discourse, its quite another to be operating and rewarded for your loyalty to the State and be monitored and possibly dissapeared if you deviate from this path. This is the same type of Human Conditioning seen during the Soviet Union, which I think can be universally understood to be a negative thing.
Many people in Hong Kong feel as though they've been forgotten by the International Community, the Umbrella Revolution/Yellow Movement was trying to oppose this since 2014, and it mainly went unnoticed other than some sound bites about violent protests, and not much else was understood beyond that.
When what should have been the real focus was the ever increasing Hegemony that was being built by the CCP that could essentially become so seemingly 'indispensable' to those addicted to its cheap labour/manufacturing that it could commit literal Crimes Against Humanity out in the open, lie and cover up International Pandemics that have cost untold Lives and Suffering several times (SARS as well as COVID), and still make People question if it's 'worth' decoupling from China.
That was my biggest fear all along, as I knew Hong Kong (the city) would eventually be returned to China. We stand at a critcal point as a Species on how we Live on Earth and I really want to maintain faith that Humanity can come to the most reasonable albeit difficult conclusion that this cannot continue, but its statements and sentiment like that that make me wonder just how detached people have become to this cancerous threat model. And if they can even muster the ability to be inconvenienced enough to actually see it for what it is instead of detaching into some perpetual self0induced distraction, often viewed from their Chinese made device.
Oh good, so I'm free to speak my own opinion as long as I don't actually try to accomplish anything!
So would calling for the end of the Chinese one-party rule and democratic elections be considered 'really absurd'?
I know people who emigrated from Taiwan before marital law was finally lifted and they were also terrified, even in the US, of criticizing Chiang Kai-Shek. I was told that there were minders on the streets in Taiwan and you might just disappear if they heard you complaining.
The only thing I want to do is point out that Russia has a nearly undeniable record of assassinating dissenters such as Alexander Litvinenko and Sergei/Yulia Skripal in the United Kingdom. China does not yet share this record with Russia, so I feel that your statement coaxes people to interpret China as a murderer on the same level as Russia ("Similar to how Russia murders defectors, it's not a good idea to be an expat and criticize China"). This is an unfair equivalency and I want to point it out.
Look up Anna Politkovskaya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Anna_Politkov...): She was a known critic of Putin and shot/murdered mysteriously. You can search on Google for Russian critics outside of Russia being killed, but as far as I publicly discern, this is not true for Chinese critics. I'm not saying that people haven't been killed for criticizing China overseas, but I will say that publicly you and I do not know of people who have been killed, unlike the obvious case for Russia. My strongest plausible interpretation is that you are saying that it could be the next step for China, and I would agree that it is a possibility.
In fact, if we really want to be exhaustive about overseas assassination of critics, there is Henry Liu who was assassinated in California for criticizing Taiwanese leader Chiang Kai-shek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liu#Confession_of_Chen_C...). If I want to start being concerned about China murdering people, it's not a massive leap of the imagination to believe that they are capable of doing it, but so far, many similar nation-states have done more than China in this regard, such as Taiwan. However, obviously I understand that Taiwan is a fairly different place now compared to 1984 when Henry was assassinated.
In order to be charitable to your comment, I can ask, "Can you explain more about what you mean?" We can argue that China might be murdering critics, but that would be in the case of stuff that happens within its borders, not outside of it. We can also arguably say that China is imposing measures on critics overseas such as economic punishments, but they do not appear to be murdering people. Therefore, I do not think your anecdote about Hong Kong immigrants being killed in the USA adds value to the discussion because it is unsubstantiated to believe that it will happen. I would say that it's believable that HK immigrants could feel threatened or be afraid of retaliation from China through other means, such as online harassment or attacks from the 50 Cent Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party)
Having said all that, I do not want to wait until it reaches the point where China can shamelessly kill people in cities across the globe. My reply to the parent comment is more to point out that our criticisms need to be healthy and balanced, lest the discussion devolves into massive leaps of unsubstantiated thought.
We have seen harsh sanctions fail to bring changes in a small poor country like NK where anyone looking South must be amazed at where they could have been.
In case of PRC, forget a kinetic physical action. Their economy is so interconnected with every other major economy that no one can afford even actual sanctions.
I am hopeful that the sheer number of citizens in HK would perhaps lead to the city retaining some of its independence. We can't predict the future... who knows? What if Xi dies in the next 5 years and his successor isn't such a hardliner?
For IT profession though, it's more flexible. Personally, I have worked in a multi-nation develop team, and the experience is good.
And yet it happened. From racist Jim Crow laws to Gay Rights, the progress made in 100 years is astonishing.
Give the PRC 100 years and who knows how it might change.
china has none of that
No one imagined it in the 1920s because they had already imagined it in the 1860s but got Jim Crow instead.
Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
So in your view, what were we supposed to learn from history?
The south will burn again
Not suddenly, but every other major economy could probably afford a gradual distancing that ends up in more-or-less the same place.
I think Germany's actions speak far more than any other country's. I would have assumed someone like Merkel to be tough here based on her standing on social issues and how she handled the migrant crisis. She, at least in the West had an image of a liberal leader with the right attitude on challenges of our times like climate change. But even Germany seems to be tiptoeing around while they look to sign a trade deal.
This recent piece from an influential Beijing professor Jiang Shigong[1] of "Xi Jinping Thought" fame, openly frames and justifies China seizing control as leader of the global empire, "Empire and World Order"[2]
[The current state of world empire] faces three great unsolvable problems: the ever-increasing inequality created by the liberal economy; state failure, political decline, and ineffective governance caused by political liberalism; and decadence and nihilism created by cultural liberalism. In the face of these difficulties, even the United States has pulled back in terms of worldwide military strategy, which means that world empire 1.0 is currently facing a great crisis, and that revolts, resistance, and revolution from within the empire are unravelling the system. ...
We might conclude that we are living in an age of chaos, conflict, and massive change in which world empire 1.0 is in decline and trending toward collapse, while we are as yet unable to imagine world empire 2.0. Yet we must recognize that change in the form of empire is a long historical process. The several thousand years of the history of mankind have witnessed only three great changes in imperial form, and each of these changes has been accompanied by great conflicts and chaos. At the same time, we cannot deny that these ages of historical transition have also created the opportunity for each civilization to construct world empire 2.0. The civilization that is able to provide genuine solutions to the three great problems facing world empire 1.0 will also provide the blueprint for world empire 2.0. As a great world power that must look beyond its own borders, China must reflect on her own future, for her important mission is not only to revive her traditional culture. China must also patiently absorb the skills and achievements of humanity as a whole, and especially those employed by Western civilization to construct world empire. Only on this basis can we see the reconstruction of Chinese civilization and the reconstruction of the world order as a mutually re-enforcing whole.
There really is a coherent internal logic to why China can solve the 3 problems identified with the liberal order. A very dystopian logic, in my opinion. But worth some serious thought; where this all is heading.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiang_Shigong
[2] https://www.readingthechinadream.com/jiang-shigong-empire-an...
That the us led world order eventually will collapse due to global inequality is pretty standard thought in communist thinking.
And of course China sees itself as a more just society with basis in the worker rather than the capital holder.
In the past few decades, the global wealth inequality has decreased significantly (under the leadership of the "US empire" nevertheless).
China isn't communist, it's just a dictatorship. Very capitalist. Huge inequality as well, growing faster than the West and approaching US wealth inequality. I can't see how there would be less inequality under the rule of the "Chinese empire".
I'm guessing that you are thinking about the number of people that have risen from poverty (lead by China, not US) because I could not find one source that is talking about decreased global wealth inequality. In fact, every single source that I could find on a short notice is talking about the rise of global wealth inequality in the last few decades.
Can you share your sources.
> Global income inequality increased for 2 centuries and is now falling
While I agree that "social authoritarianism" is pretty shitty, I'll take it over "government authoritarianism" any day of the week (mind you, we're commenting on a story about someone being jailed for speech, not just fired).
As an old Chinese man said, "love, ideals, loyalty, none of that matters anymore once your food is taken away." You _will_ report your family as traitors if that's what is standing between you and starvation.
We must never excuse the horrors going on in China, and we must always recognize that civil unrest is always the symptom, never the disease.
I'm trying to self reflect a lot here. Forgive my provoking thoughts.
Looking at even the US itself crumbles in today's misinformation world. I now have doubts in Democracy like Socrates did. If not for HK, Taiwan, and Uyghur Muslims, I'd consider Xi's dictatorship a good modern day role dictatorship.
What are the alternatives? Democracy has failed us in today's increasingly complex society, with free flow of misinformation everywhere. Education doesn't fix the problem. Critical thinking is hard, thinking is hard. Free education and free information doesn't fix the problem because people believe what they want to believe.
As long as a country has stability and peace and the prosperity of its citizens, then shouldn't it be in that country's best interest to crush any opposition by any means necessary, including committing actions that are provoking UN or violating Geneva Convention left and right. Won't good (from the perspective of its citizens) dictatorship is better than crumbling Democracy?
But power corrupts. Eventually it will. And the dictators will be overthrown, pulling the pendulum in the other direction.
In what way is it good?
It also does things like this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/magazine/the-lonely-crusa...
and this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/magazine/the-lonely-crusa... (on a related note, here's a video of what the Chinese police could do to you if you talk smack about them on WeChat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiMLVYK4hEc)
> What are the alternatives? Democracy has failed us in today's increasingly complex society, with free flow of misinformation everywhere. Education doesn't fix the problem. Critical thinking is hard, thinking is hard. Free education and free information doesn't fix the problem because people believe what they want to believe.
> As long as a country has stability and peace and the prosperity of its citizens, then shouldn't it be in that country's best interest to crush any opposition by any means necessary, including committing actions that are provoking UN or violating Geneva Convention left and right. Won't good (from the perspective of its citizens) dictatorship is better than crumbling Democracy?
If you're curious why you're downvoted, it was probably because of this "argument." You're saying democracy has failed and list some problems. Then, because of those problems, you appear to advocate for a rather nasty dictatorship, where those very same problems you just complained about would be worse.
The thing with China is, it is insanely big. How to govern this big country effectively if not dictatorship?
I previously tried to compare Japan and SK to China. But I realized that their culture is drastically different, and SK and Japan is also a much smaller country.
What? Xi took power in 2012, long after the lifting happened.
> The thing with China is, it is insanely big. How to govern this big country effectively if not dictatorship?
If it's too big to govern except through ruthless means, then maybe that means it's just too big, period. There's no moral imperative that says empires have to remain whole through any means necessary.
No, CCP is the entity people often attribute China's economic rise to. And even that is not completely correct; Deng opened up the market a bit, and the Chinese people themselves took the opportunity to rebuild the economy from the ruins of central planning.
> How to govern this big country effectively if not dictatorship?
You can say that about groups of any size. It is often said a benevolent dictator is the most efficient and effective way to run a group: see Linux for an example.
But this only works if everyone has shared goals and shared values. What if people have different opinions? Hint: look at how much China spends on "stability maintenance" (维稳) each year: it's bigger than their military budget.
What's most likely is information erosion, brain washing, espionage and political upheaval caused by CCP actors. Be careful what you write on the internet. You'll see the full wrath of CCP cancel culture like you've never seen before in the year 2050. Also, keep an eye on whichever country you belong to and how its government is not influenced by CCP. It might be a little too late for Australia [1].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/world/australia/politicia...
If the war is going to happen it will happen somewhere close to China, because the reverse isn't possible.
But if you are talking about winning a war that is close to China, against China, you are not in the right mind.
Truth to be told, not even US can afford to total war against China on its own. You need a WW3 to drag everyone into the battle.
Now some basement-dwelling armchair generals want to go to war with the consequences of our own making. If humanity ends in a cloud of fallout, it'll be hard to say we didn't deserve it.
Edit: if your last paragraph was relating to me I never advocated for it. Why is it you can’t say how you see things panning out without people thinking that you want it to be that way? I noticed it a lot on social media these days. For example I dislike Trump but predicted his election and was crucified for it. I was right.
The problem with whataboutism is that even if you can establish equivalence (you haven't) it doesn't refute the underlying statement.
Furthermore, in this case it may assume that I have some desire to defend the US's former middle eastern policy. It is not impossible to dislike both in varying degrees.
Although it is illogical, it is an effective way to derail the discussion. I admit that much.
As your comment points out, the current $BOOGEYMAN is probably not as strong as sold. My comment was intended to say that, with hindsight, not only have all the recent @BOOGEYMEN not been existential threats (for the US in particular, let alone "The West" in general), a recent one was even fabricated.
Rumsfeld on looting as a sign of freedom:
> "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime, ... I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures ... [who wouldn't] accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."
Seriously, the clearer we see that boycotts and economic isolation are far more favourable than preserving the Wealth of a Boomer generation the sooner this via War that mentality can fade from Human consciousness.
I'd sooner see all of the boomers have their wealth stripped and lost before even a proxy war take place with drones.
This isn't entirely generational conflict, I have worked with some amazing people who happened to be Boomer aged, but given how collectively calloused they've been to all other generations to support an unsustainable path I want to see a massive correction in their standard of living and quality of Life so they get a wake up call to the true costs what what they have imposed upon the World. More of a rigid confined mental state that has been upheld for so long that they cannot escape it without a real kick to the head. Most of Greta's followers of notoriety are all Boomer Age or older, but seldom actually do anything: Merkle being a prime example of this.
As a millennial, I have it very clear in my mind how Gen Z will likely be the first generation to totally abandon any filial/paternal loyalty left in decision making when they truly understand the gravity of not just the Political/Economic damage (which has always been transient) that they are gong to inherit the dire Environmental situation.
I hope we see a massive diaspora of Humans to rural under populated places as a result, and given my conversations with many who seem disillusioned with their prospects in both the East and West that seems to be already happening; many HKers are fleeing to Taiwan or the UK, and others have been in Canada for some time but they're also moving to Australia, and the US.
These are highly skilled, highly educated migrants with Western values that are being competed for. Taiwan is offering them a form of UBI for those that arrive from HK die to political reasons, and the UK is making lots of accommodations for BN(O) passport holders.
This is what disruption looks like, its never pretty and almost always pretty damn messy, but I'm glad we're here as the CCP has to be stopped.
I think that war is much more likely than a peaceful transition to a China-centric world.
I also don't think that war will be a "hot" conflict. China's economy would collapse if the developed world abandoned it.
What will continue is the "cold wars" being waged right now through the internet. Russia, China, and Iran are all actively trying to destabilize the US. All have had some success, with Russia seemingly having the most success (although the relevant intelligence briefings are still classified for now).
There's no reason for countries successfully waging digital wars (with no casualties or loss of business) to suddenly start firing missiles in a world of mutually-assured destruction.
>I do not want to lose business and professional opportunities because I am not Han.
I don't think this will be as big of a problem as you expect it to be. Do you have any western Han friends who do business in China? Being Han isn't going to stop others from trying to screw you over, even if you aren't Western.
If you're actually worried, then your main concern should be learning Mandarin.
I think only a few demographics will experience the racism that you fear.
Also keep in mind that China is making way more enemies than friends these days, so there is no way the world is going to be China-centric to the extent that you're worried about.
We see no evidence for that. In fact, that's part of their current propaganda as well, if you read their news.
We have invaded others countries for less
It's almost as if "democracy" wasn't the real reason for those invasions.
And the OP is cynical, it takes a lot for the US to mount a proper. Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, and post 9/11 Iraq part 2 + policing actions in Afghanistan are relatively big deals.
For the most part, there's no reason for the US and China to 'go to war'. What would they go to war over? The sheer physicality doesn't provide the opportunity.
Except for Taiwan - which China will go to great lengths to nab, and the US/West may or may not go to great lengths to defend. Even then I don't see war.
China will is not going to otherwise mount a military invasion of anything, it would be too costly. Their version of 'invasion' is called the 'Belt and Road' and it's ensuing corruption.
But both of those reasons would also align with an intervention in China. The true answer to why we haven't intervened is both mundane and terrifying: China has nuclear weapons.
You dont to sanctions to countries that provide most of your goods without a viable alternative. Sanctionning Iran does not change your daily life. Sanctionning China would suddenly make a large impact as to what you can actually buy and at what price.
Beijing would be forced into a very difficult position - attack US forces in Taiwan, leading to massive military escalation, or lose face by allowing the US and Taiwan to call Beijing’s bluff
No it's not.
That China has nukes is not relevant because there's no impetus for the US to be 'invading' China whatsoever.
Other than of course a standoff in Korea 60 years ago, the US and China are not military adversaries.
China absolutely is a geopolitical rival with militaristic and global hegemonic ambitions, and they have already committed to actions that we have gone to war over in the past. And they are on the cusp of a handful of actions that would have triggered a world war if they were done in the past. But nothing will happen to China for the same reason that nothing happened to Russia during the cold war. Because they have nukes.
The US is the only entity that can stand toe to toe with China, as China can splinter any UN or EU response. Ultimately to get some other countries on board, they have to believe the US has their back full-stop. Such that when China starts throwing an inevitable response tantrum, the US will be there to lend unconditional, unflinching support. Who trusts the Trump government's erratic behavior enough to believe that at this point? You have to bet your nation's economic well-being on believing that his administration will have your back if you join the restrain-China coalition. Most countries will naturally avoid taking that risk and will attempt to hedge or dodge the matter. The West will only be able to mount a serious long-term plan once Trump is gone. The powermongers in DC love this style of great power bipolar struggle, a return to the cold war, a very clearly defined giant enemy to focus on; but they can't effectively do anything until Trump is gone, there's too much chaos in the system.
It'll look like this: US + EU + Japan + Britain + South Korea + Canada + Australia + New Zealand + South Korea (along with a few others) working in closer unison, running a program. It's the only approach that can work, China is too big for anything else at this point. China does a thing, the group responds. Huawei is a haphazard trial run; the team is going to have to get into fighting shape, because China isn't messing around, they want the global hegemony crown and total dominance over Asia.
Those countries don't have nukes.
Yet NBA players now bow to China and Hollywood goes to great length to make their movies as little offending to China as possible.
Countries that didn’t have nuclear weapons and ICBMs
It is like asking why the US never invaded the Soviet Union. There was a window in the second half of the 1940s it might have been achievable without global thermonuclear war, albeit a war-weary world that had just endured the biggest war in human history didn’t have the appetite for that
We've only really seen Russian systems in action and they've mostly failed, however it's very easy to argue this is due to poor training. One notable (alleged) engagement in Syria involved a Russian operated s400 battery (the latest and greatest) attempting to shoot down some of the 70+ tomahawks trump launched. Whilst some didn't make it to their targets there's no evidence the s400 hit them rather than them operationally failing. It's unlikely anyone would be better trained than the Russian military itself so if this indeed did happen it is damning for currently fielded IADS's.
Another reason for the apparent ineffectiveness of IADS's could be the west's proficiency at dealing with them:
Jets like the EA-18 growler are designed purely to entice systems to reveal their position (switching on their radar) so another jet can launch an anti-radiation air to ground missile (AGM) at it.
It's very likely the B2, f35 and f22 can't even be targeted by any IADS due to their low radar cross section.
Stand off weapons give the ability to destroy targets without being inside the range of any IADS. These could be used to strike important targets before the IADS is down or to pick the IADS apart itself (if you know where its assets are).
Given all this information I still can't say an anti aircraft system wouldn't be effective.. but I think the fact China is investing heavily into its air force implies that they have the same concerns about IADS effectiveness that I do.
Sorry that was so long, had a Pringles moment!
Going further with sanctions only make sure sanctions will no longer work, for there is nothing valuable to sanction with.
as the article says, anything critical to the Party carries a treason-like sentence.
Some here even wanted to start a war with China in the name of human rights. Remember crusades in the name of Christian?
Most people here don't know or don't care if HK was a democracy under UK, and don't care if there is a law to guard the arrest of Jimmy Lai and if ordinary HK people are sick of Ted Cruz etc coming to HK to fan up fire when HK was burning, whom and also other US politicians Jimmy Lai has met with.
Edit:
For those who don't know, Ted Cruz came over to HK to show his support in Oct. 20019 when HK was burning. And the most despicable was he claimed no riots in HK. That was the moment HK's fate was sealed.
https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4714
https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3032751/ted-cru...
HK's political movements have no leadership or strategy at all. This kind of acts would turn all Mainland people against them. And CCP would feel empowered to do what ever.
My point is the situation in HK is much complicated than beautiful democracy vs evil CCP. It's much more than ideology.
Do you now understand why those riots were important ? Because the National Security laws are being used to crackdown on dissent exactly as the HK protestors predicted.
This arrest is actually an opportunity to test if the new security law has some merits. Jimmy Lai has the resource to defend himself in court. Let's wait for it to unfold.
The wealthiest people on the planet who actually influence what governments do prioritize wealth accumulation above nationalism presently. If they didn’t every nation wouldn’t be so in bed with each other at this point.
The aggression is a display of power and generate a ‘feeling’ of superiority to keep a population content.
There won’t be a war. We’ll only see large scale wars again when our environment collapses and wealth extraction is no longer the number one priority. Having food, water, and other natural resources that were once plenty go scarce will cause war.
Perhaps this will never happen but I’m assuming it will. The wealth extraction phase will continue to abuse our planet at peak efficiency until Earth can no longer handle it. Then you will have war.