We need two things, I don’t think either will happen:
1) sanctions against China
2) a Greater Firewall outside China, right on all fiber cables, blocking/filtering all traffic from China.
China is a hostile nation and we need to treat it as such.
1) sanctions against China
2) a Greater Firewall outside China, right on all fiber cables, blocking/filtering all traffic from China.
China is a hostile nation and we need to treat it as such.
I don't like China's behavior (toward us and it's own). I don't believe for a minute that I know how to solve the problem, because every solution is bound to have unintended side effects, some which may be worse than the original problem.
Gather the experts in the fields (there are likely more than one field at play) and manage their discussion. I would ask them questions and observe how they discuss. If I felt that one or both were not intellectually honest, I would replace them with other people, and repeat.
Once I felt an intellectually honest discussion had reached a conclusion, then I would act (vote, provide legislation, etc).
It is sad to me that we are moving away from a process like this and not toward it.
Given the amount of suspicious Chinese devices and traffic, you'd imagine we should be doing something though?
Who is 'we'? Chances are you live in a country founded in democratic principles. This means after each election, priorities change, based on the politicians that are voted into office.
Take the USA as a good example. The priorities of the 2008-2016 administration were undermined by the 2017-2020 administration, and the priorities of the 2017-2020 administration are being undermined by the 2021-now administration.
Both sides think they're right, and were doing what was right for the country. Both sides think the other was an existential threat to the nation, and use similar rhetoric to justify their actions.
That ship sailed long ago.
If the only alternate is status quo, then it's not working very well is it for:
1) Tibetans, Uighurs and other minorities
2) Taiwan, India, and basically any country that shares a border which China, since China has border issues with every country that it shares a border with
3) US, and Western world whose IP is being stolen everyday and is being constantly under attack from China
I really have no idea where this narrative comes from. Chinese government is evil, hostile, and cruel even to (some of) their own citizens. However, China as a nation are people - just like you and me. Why should we treat them as "hostile"? It makes no sense at all. This kind of crooked reasoning and blurred thinking is one of the main causes of all wars in the history of mankind.
The problem is that the Chinese government, who ARE hostile, take advantage of the fact that we treat most Chinese as non-hostile. Nobody knows how many Chinese students and workers in the West are essentially spies for the Chinese government, but we do know it is enough to be worried about.
I'm not sure what we can do about that but I don't think we can pretend it's not an issue.
But we do know how many of them are contributing domestically. A growing percentage of American PHD graduates came from China and the vast majority of them are planning to stay.
https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/CSET-Trends-i...
A nation is generally its government, CCP in the example of China and yes it is hostile against every non-China nation. Chinese are people just like every other people.
This is exactly the argument I object to. As per definition, "A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or a common culture." Keeping this distinction (between the government and the citizens) is crucial because the discourse influences actions.
Now, the point you're making - that there is a difference between the government and the people, and we need to remember it - is a valid point, and an important one. But you're splitting the wrong hair to make that point.
And this is more or less fine. Not just in the news, in normal conversation we do the same. Not just "China is doing this" but also "Chinese are doing this." That's also logically true, because some subset (however big or small) of Chinese is doing this.
However, I object to this particular expression - "China is a hostile nation." I don't know why it's even a point of contention. Maybe when people use the term 'nation' they actually mean 'state'? Because 'nation' by and large refers to people the country consist of.
Yes, they do.
> Because 'nation' by and large refers to people the country consist of.
No, it doesn't. We keep telling you this, over and over and over, and you keep not listening, but I'm going to say it one more time: No, it doesn't. When you're talking about international things - things between countries - "nation" by and large refers to the government, not the people.
Definition 1.b. in your link includes the government explicitly.
None of them exclude the government, and they can all reasonably include the government.
I'm discussing this apparently insignificant issue ad nauseam only because repeated conflation of government and citizens in discourse, media, and ultimately our minds are not without consequences.
I don’t see how you can make this claim so strongly.
The government is not independent of the people even if it is authoritarian.
Any hostility enacted by the government will necessarily involve the people. Governments need people in order to do anything.
A government without people can speak hostile words, but can’t be hostile, because by definition it can’t do anything if it isn’t governing anyone.
You will need to explain.
The Communists are the problem, and even then not unqualified: the CCP has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of relative poverty to economic prosperity, even as they do terrible things to Tibetans, Uighurs, and Falun Gong, among others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Chinese
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Chinese_New_Year...
The important difference between the “West” and China is that everyone knows CCP is going to look out for China. It’s not immediately clear that governments in the west do the same for their own.
Right, and increasingly those "stakeholders" don't include the actual citizens of those nations.
How do you propose to coordinate hundreds of countries to cut one country off the internet?
Oh, and targeted sanctions - aren't. Entities will view any sanctions as a legal risk and find it easier to just stop trading with the country at all. See Iran with medical supplies during the pandemic.
This idea that sanctions are a peaceful or nonviolent alternative to bombing things needs to die. In the 90s the sanctions against Iraq led to the deaths of half a million civilians and caused multiple successive UN humanitarian coordinators in Iraq to resign, calling the sanctions regime "genocidal". How anyone can continue to view sanctions as a favorable option is beyond me.
The sanctions on Iran aren't targeted. They're blanket sanctions with specific exceptions. The problem there is asking international companies to do a bunch of stuff otherwise forbidden by the sanctions (financial, logistical, etc) which I assume is either a pain to get approved ahead of time or frightening to justify after the fact.
A better example of targeted sanctions is what's happening in response to the poisoning of Navalny. Specific Russians were sanctioned. That doesn't hurt uninvolved citizens nearly as much.
So does doing nothing.
Sorry, but it is time that the world is sanctioning the united states in the way that you propose to sanction China that is finding back to its old strength.
best regards from a white person from europe, not a chinese.
And they are quite ineffective.