China congress: BBC team forced to sign confession
bbc.com
bbc.com
I truly don't know what could be done to help free speech prosper there as it should.
Frankly, without doing this, you'd never be able to admonish and have it carry any real weight with Chinese policy makers. They'd just see a black pot calling out the kettle.
Invocation of whataboutism is a mind bug and a lazy excuse to be one-sided that has to die.
And it's not just a "let's focus on X FOR NOW" issue (which would still be wrong, as issues should be judged relatively to gauge their importance).
It's mainly invoked by people who never bother to point fingers on the non-X sides, so the "let's focus on X FOR NOW" is more like "let's focus on X permanently".
The hypothetical interaction that would go "US: Hey China, we worry about your policy X. China: Hey US, we sort of understand where you're coming from, given your history. We also see similar issue with some of your policies..." would be perfectly fine.
You aren't going to push debate forward with this.
BBC, The Economist or Edward Lucas are not Americans either.
No one is perfect, if perfection is necessary to criticise or even just report news, then nothing will be criticised or reported.
"Actually, the principle that I think we ought to follow is the principle we rightly expected Soviet dissidents to follow. So what principle did we expect Sakharov [a Soviet scientist punished for his criticism of the U.S.S.R.] to follow? Why did people here decide that Sakharov was a moral person? I think he was. Sakharov did not treat every atrocity as identical-he had nothing to say about American atrocities. When he was asked about them, he said, "I don't know anything about them, I don't care about them, what I talk about are Soviet atrocities." And that was right-because those were the ones that he was responsible for, and that he might have been able to influence. Again, it's a very simple ethical point: you are responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions, you're not responsible for the predictable consequences of somebody else's actions."
AKA my country, right or wrong.
AKA, refusal to accept that value judgements are relative, not god given absolutes.
AKA, priority (let's focus on X and only X now) without actually prioritizing (let's compare to see if X is actually the major offender we should be focusing on)
But even more so, who said the 1.3 billion people in China are "victims" needing our compassion? Have you asked them whether they like their government and how their country is going?
And don't just ask some group back in the 90s in Tiananmen square -- because we could always ask the Kent State students in 1970, the blacks in Selma, the OWS, the Tea Party, the ones protesting against Bush/Obama/Trump etc and get a picture that wouldn't necessarily be what most of American's feel too.
There surely are human right abuses in China.
But it's the Chinese (the people, not the government) that should define what they are, through their own values and preferences, not some finger pointing foreigners. Especially from countries with a large history of plundering, which also involves China (opium wars, etc) and most of the Pacific.
From the article
"We'd arranged to meet a woman in her village in China's central Hunan Province and to then travel with her by train to Beijing, filming as we went. But we never did get to meet our interviewee. The story we ended up with, however, reveals more about the exercise of power in China than any interview ever could. It is one that involves violence, intimidation and a forced confession - my first in my long reporting experience in China - in which I found myself apologising for "behaviour causing a bad impact" and for trying to conduct an "illegal interview"."
So, yes, this exact story is about asking Chinese people about their government and having their equipment smashed and being forced to sign confessions for their efforts.
It should certainly be for the Chinese to define these things, the fact they can't is rather the point.
I highly recommend a short essay by the anthropologist Lila Abu-Lughod titled "Do Muslim Women Need Saving?" that touches on parts of this question: http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/01/do-muslim-women-need-saving....
> We were surprised when many women in Afghanistan didn’t take them off after being “liberated,” seeing as they had become such symbols of oppression in the West. But we were confusing veiling with a lack of agency.
Agency doesn't mean "the will of the majority", it means individual ability. The Taliban imposing veiling removed agency. Now it's given back. Even if no more than a single woman in Afghanistan willingly removed the veil, it's still a good thing. If 10 years from now 100% of the women there decide they don't want to wear it anymore, they'll (hopefully) be able. Not under the Taliban.
> many women saw it as a liberating invention because it enabled them to move out of segregated living spaces while still observing the requirements of separating and protecting women from unrelated men.
I see how it can be liberating in that way for a woman whose religious beliefs make separation and protection a moral mandate. The difference, of course, is that religious beliefs shouldn't be imposed, and the Taliban did impose them.
> If we think that U.S. women live in a world of choice regarding clothing, we need to look no further than our own codes of dress and the often constricting tyrannies of fashion.
This is the most ridiculous argument. Of the many many women of the free countries that purposely dress against the norm, none are sent to jail, stoned to death, or whatever.
Is the whole essay like this?
> I see how it can be liberating in that way for a woman whose religious beliefs make separation and protection a moral mandate.
Huh? I think you're mixing up religious beliefs with social ones. This mandate is not unique to Islam and can be found all over the world in societies of varying development and even Christian ones. In fact, you should look at pictures of pre-revolution Iran [0] as proof that Islam itself is not incompatible with women mingling with men or not being veiled.
> This is the most ridiculous argument. Of the many many women of the free countries that purposely dress against the norm, none are sent to jail, stoned to death, or whatever.
Oh really? Men have been beat for wearing drag or for dressing effeminately. (or if you care specifically about women, see: transgender women) Gang members kill people over the color of their shirt or shoes. It's still illegal in most states for women to go topless. Just because you're not forced to wear a veil, doesn't mean you aren't oppressed by society's fashion.
> Is the whole essay like this?
It's not really a long essay, see for yourself.
[0]: http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-before-the-revolution-in...
> proof that Islam itself is not incompatible with women mingling with men or not being veiled
There are many branches of Islam, the same as there are many branches of Christianity.
In any case, my point was just that I can see how it's liberating for someone who would have personally chosen separation anyway. The Taliban imposed it. The author's argument that "many women saw it as a liberating invention" is like saying "many African slaves did live happy lives in the US south, and remained with their masters after liberation". Even if it's factually true, it's dishonest. If the veil's so good, let each woman choose.
> Men have been beat for wearing drag or for dressing effeminately. (or if you care specifically about women, see: transgender women) Gang members kill people over the color of their shirt or shoes.
You know that has nothing to do with fashion, which is what the author talks about. And you know those things are illegal, as opposed to mandated by law. So I don't think you're being frank in this conversation, rather just arguing for the sake of it.
> we need to look no further than our own codes of dress and the often constricting tyrannies of fashion.
Codes of dress, and tyrannies of fashion.
As I said, this is the most ridiculous argument. Of the many many women of the free countries that purposely dress against the norm, none are sent to jail, stoned to death, or whatever.
> you make disingenuous statements like "mandated by law"
Maybe I'm misinformed. I honestly believe the Taliban government imposed that all women had to wear a veil. Is that not the case?
US human rights violations surely do not all take place within the confines of Guantanamo Bay, nor are all of China's 1.3 billion people subject to mistreatment.
Even in China, the dispensation of justice is relative, which is what the article is about. I suppose you're OK with that too. Next you'll be telling us nobody can accuse the Chinese judicial system of corruption because the Americans are lynching Negroes.
in other words, only the infallible may criticize anyone/thing? that seems counterproductive.
If my hair is messed up and i tell a stranger that their hair is messed up, does that make me wrong? should they ignore what i said because /my/ hair is messed up?
No, it's simpler than that. Not all sins are equal.
It's not an appropriate comparison.
No, that is exactly the very definition of a whataboutism!
Many Chinese feel like they always need the high ground, and if their criticiser is not "perfect", whatever they say is null and void. This is just nuts, because no one is perfect.
When the US preaches about human rights it devalues the concept. That makes it harder to hold countries like China to account.
And anyways, how do US torture camps compare to Chinese torture camps? Its not like China is a paragon of virtue here, torture by the police is a huge problem that even the gov admits to (hey, police shouldn't torture people, please don't, it makes us look bad).
> When the US preaches about human rights it devalues the concept.
And who is the "US"? It is like some unified person that speaks with one voice? Is the NyTimes the US? Is the BBC the US? When I speak out on China, am I the US?
> That makes it harder to hold countries like China to account.
That is a straw man. We can't hold China to account for their human rights behavior, we have no right to do that. But we can damn be sure that everyone knows about it. I would expect the same for other countries with respect to the US.
> how do US torture camps compare to Chinese torture camps?
Bringing the conversation there is super weird. A torture camp is not a normal thing for a civilized country to have.
The US government failed to dismantle it for 8 years when it had a democratic mandate to do that. Now, with a president elected after proclaiming torture a fine thing, when a western country tells a dictator to stop human rights abuse, they can just shut the conversation with "tell your American friend to stop it first".
Anyways, this whataboutism-ing is idiotic. If you want to talk about the USA whenever we are talking about china fine, but why don't you start a separate article submission.
The terms mean different things. "Whataboutism" is the calling-out of hypocrisy, not hypocrisy itself.
Especially since lots of those not living in the US, e.g. in large parts of Europe still take a lot of US-based worldviews and US-influenced news in (the "Americanization of Europe").
In what is probably the lowest point in his career Obama objected and effectively said that slightly lower trade barriers mattered more than slavery.
Not they would. They DO. But honestly, despite its evident corruption that even their own leader admits is the biggest threat to the viability of their government, their government still strikes me as more competent in a gets-shit-done way than most other countries I see these days (considering only G20 countries, the smaller your country is, the less complex your problems are, and consider that China's problems are MASSIVE).
Canadian living in China, amazed by how well things get done here, despite the massive problems they have. Albeit they aren't a democracy, so they don't need to care as much about doing what people want. On the flip side, the government is focusing mostly on what people want anyway, so it mostly works out. People who are ignorant about China are significantly ignorant about how well-run their government is. It's much more of a meritocracy than other countries' governments are, despite the evident corruption.
I'm not justifying abusing human rights. I am torn in that I don't know how they keep a handle on their country if they don't have an iron fist. I find that most people who say otherwise are ignorant about the complex reality in China. It's not a simple situation.
Everyone lives in their own echo chamber. Just some people aren't aware that they do. If Clinton supporters didn't live in such an echo chamber, they wouldn't have realized how out of touch they were with all the people who voted for Trump, and how angry all those Trump supporters were at the establishment. If the Trump supporters didn't live in such an echo chamber, they wouldn't have elected someone who looks like he doesn't know what he's doing.
Again, Xi Jiping is on record saying that corruption is the biggest risk being faced by the Chinese government. He is on record saying that the Communist Party's future depends on stamping out corruption. Their methods for identifying and stamping out corruption may or may not work. But it is disingenuous for anyone to suggest that their government is either ignorant of the level of corruption or actively trying to hide it. You didn't say that. But constantly focusing on corruption is preaching to the choir.
Would a free press help? It may, it may not. It may not because a free press is also a blunt instrument. You have a large percentage of the population that's uneducated and easily manipulated. Think fake news and alternative facts are a problem in the US? China does not want to open that Pandora's Box. Seeing what's happening in the US, I don't blame them. A lot of China's problems require finesse in terms of sound long-term policy and policy execution, and I am sad to say that after living here for a while, I agree that a free press could whip uneducated masses into an unproductive frenzy. This situation is very dissimilar to how Wycliffe, Huss, and Luther translated the Bible to English to free them from control of the Catholic Church. These people are often literate already, thank you very much.
Well, yes, we do.
I also can't imagine how Chinese people could ever know those without a free press. They can at most gather some anecdotes about them and their family, such anecdotes are almost guaranteed to be highly correlated and thus useless for knowing any overall trend.
That said, are you suggesting that highly-correlated, anecdotal evidence of having more wealth, better quality social services, and not currently suffering in a retrogressive cultural revolution can't be trusted because there is no free press to tell people that their quality of living is definitely trending upwards?
0: https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/26...
The US government can not lie too much about the US wealth. Somebody would immediately call the lie, and people would become mad. Even here at Brazil, that scales way lower on press freedom, the government can not lie about any objective measure of wealth (but has extensive lies about subjective ones). The Chinese government seems to lie about their numbers every single time - everybody just discounts them by now, but there is no reason to assume the official numbers have even the correct signal.
And yes, I'm saying exactly that. People there have no way of knowing if for anybody they see progressing in life there isn't a dozen other having their life ruined, because those later dozen are invisible.
If you want to make claims, you better have evidence to back it up. Because what people experience in China is a significant increase of quality of life at all levels. Yes, the income inequality is huge. Yes, a huge amount of wealth is generated by capitalists on the backs of factory workers. That doesn't mean that the poor are worse off than they were before. Lifting tide truly lifts all boats in China. Yes, there are significant suspicions that China lies about its numbers. That doesn't change the seeing eye test that people in China are way better off than they were 10 years ago. I know a girl who moved to Shenzhen at 16 years old to join a factory. She's approaching 30 now, just finished her university degree, and has a career in advertising. She started out as an uneducated country girl. Her story is common. Those who never make it out of the factory? Fact of the matter is, their quality of life is still better than if they did something else. The book Factory Girls by Leslie Chang is an incredibly insightful look into the lives of these people.
An incompetent government turns its potential into garbage. See Argentina, Brazil, India, and others. Each of those countries could be so much farther than they are, but they shot themselves in the foot due to corruption, poor economic planning, and poor infrastructure planning. China started at the same starting line as many of them. I remember attending the Asia Pacific AmCham thingy in Beijing in 2010. The big story was how India was the future poised for becoming the big story. Here we are seven years later with India still treading water in the same place it was before due to political deadlock and corruption.
But as the saying goes, a big enough quantitative difference becomes a qualitative difference.
As such, it's possible to verify whether or not things are working. Whether or not things will last, that's a completely different story that's yet to be told. I'll admit my own prediction is that China's problems are too big for any human institution to solve, it will likely implode. But that's neither here nor there regarding this topic if we're comparing past to present, given the complexity of their problems.
That same system of government killed more than 30 million people during the Chinese famine.
How do you know? Honest question. Who's done and published those statistics?
No, that says nothing about how we'll run a country is. China imported a lot of ideas and technology which enables progress without competence. You can compare median per capita earnings after modernization to get an idea of competence but so far China has taken much longer to modernize than for example Japan or South Korea suggesting huge issues even if the GDP numbers are not quite terrible. Further, they where starting from huge self inflicted wounds due to massive incompetence, a 30% drop in output, and corruption leading to millions of deaths from starvation.
Yes, they are starting from huge self-inflicted wounds, which you accurately quantify. My own personal view is that China is not fixable. I don't think it has a bright future. It's Japan with less education, less innovation, and a bigger biological time bomb. That doesn't change the fact that I respect the heck out of its modern day government post-Deng Xiaoping. They were dealt a horrible hand, and they are staying in the game longer than I thought possible.
That's astonishing. You think so little of your fellow countrymen that you don't trust them to receive information from sources other than the government?
Look at other countries that have introduced freedom of speech laws. I cannot recall countries being destroyed by such unproductive frenzies, but I do remember corrupt politicians being forced out of power, and people standing up for the rights of individuals, etc.
Now the press is as vital as ever – Trump's favourability ratings are at historic lows, and there are countless stories about the disarray in the White House. That's good (from my perspective). None of that would be possible in China, as there's no press to hold leaders to account.
In the US, the populist Trump is trying to get the same effect with the "the press is all lies, trust only what I say" rhetoric.
The antidote to lies is education, and it's not in the interest of an authoritarian regime to educate its population to the point where they can question the state's propaganda. So the only way out to freedom seems to be to start with independent (even if illegal) press.
He clearly said that he was Canadian.
I'm American, and my countrymen just elected someone who's clearly incompetent to the highest office in the land (and in the primary elections before, the other party chose someone who's clearly corrupt as the opposition candidate). I don't really trust my countrymen either.
>Look at other countries that have introduced freedom of speech laws. I cannot recall countries being destroyed by such unproductive frenzies, but I do remember corrupt politicians being forced out of power, and people standing up for the rights of individuals, etc.
Have you forgotten the Arab Spring? That wasn't really from free speech laws per se, but it was fueled by social media which acts the same. A bunch of dictators were forced out of power or killed, and then the people proceeded to elect Islamic extremists to power, as in Egypt where they elected the Muslim Brotherhood, who then proceeded to oppress minorities. Libya is a complete mess now, and Syria has been going through a brutal civil war for over 5 years now. Those countries were better off under their previous dictatorships. I think all evidence points to democratic systems and freedom of press and information being a very bad thing in places where the populace is uneducated and incapable of electing decent leaders. It isn't even working very well in America. It works great in places like Norway and Switzerland though, places where the populace is highly educated.
No, it was fuelled by decades of oppression by leaders propped up by Western powers, most especially the oppression of Islamic elements that had nevertheless enjoyed widespread public support.
To ascribe that failure to "freedom of speech" is, it seems, a gross violation of reality.
So was in USSR, and how it fared, you know.
Frankly there is very little we as individuals outside China can directly do about the situation over there. Maybe contribute to some charities or such that operate in China? They have to be very careful not to be seen as interfering politically, but just the fact of them existing and doing good work can help establish a culture of civic engagement and responsibility.
Your second point is bang on. Restrictions on free speech and rights, intrusions into private life and communications over here, all of that is hugely harmful not just to ourselves but also to our moral authority and expectations of civil liberties across the world.
How? Would that be illegal in itself in China?
> livestreaming their trip back to BBC HQ
Maybe doable if the local phone reception is good enough and not blocked (remember, the great firewall throttles VPNs)
> having an agent buy their tickets/hotels so it looked like a local was going instead of the BBC?
Is this in and of itself legal in China? Or is it one of those places where you have to register your passport number at the hotel?
Part of travelling as a journalist is doing so openly as much as possible - covert journalism runs the risk of being deemed espionage, which can result in a death sentence.
It is not legal, no. Travel on railway and plane and booking hotels all require you to present your ID, as is signing up for a mobile phone.
They interview lots of people with no problems, and they don't know which ones will kick off. They are reporters and their visas are journalist visas. There's no quicker way for them to get kicked out of the country than doing clandestine reporting that embarrasses the government and breaks the law. Lastly, this is the story. In all honesty, people will probably care more about 'BBC journalists attacked' than they would the original 'Chinese citizens human rights abuses'.
Most attackers (low level, local politicians) will be unable to break this most of the time, which would make for a safer situation for all involved. I think that this should be standard procedure in every country, subbing in Signal Private Messenger where it isn't blocked.
States worldwide should not be destroying journalists equipment nor threatening them with violence.
Surely this is something that most people can agree on, no matter your opinion on Guantanamo, the US government, hypocrisy, foreign wars, the east, the west, etc.
Personally, I find it unacceptable when the USA does it, and I find it unacceptable when China does it.
No comparison. Moral relativism run amok.
As we see from the article, there is factual reporting being done on the issues in China. While I agree that some people have it harder than others while traveling in the US (muslims), they generally have freedom of movement within the United States.
Given the difficulties of talking about human rights and the natural tribalism of people on all sides, let's talk about specific behaviors most of us can agree are bad, regardless of who does them, and join together in condemning specific instances of those behaviors wherever they take place in the world.
The US is not the top nation as far as press freedom is concerned; sometimes people in power restrict access to information, and sometimes reporters are actually arrested for dubious reasons (an example is when reporters cover a protest and a "street sweep" happens -- see this recent example: http://www.cjr.org/watchdog/journalist_arrested_inauguration...). This is not a good thing when it happens. The good news is our legal framework is pretty strong for protecting reporters.
For these reasons, RSF's current ranking of our press freedom is 41st, roughly around where France is. (https://rsf.org/en/news/united-states-ranks-41st-reporters-w...)
China, in contrast, is ranked #176 (https://rsf.org/en/china). Only three countries are lower: Syria, Turkmenistan, and North Korea. Obviously the same motif applies: restriction of press freedom is not a good thing. It is pretty obvious that China is by far worse in this department, and there is much more to condemn on this subject over there.
(edit: bad URL)
Outside of the US it happens:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo
"When former British Home Secretary David Blunkett published his memoirs in late 2006, it was revealed he had advised Prime Minister Tony Blair in late March 2003 to bomb the Al Jazeera television transmitter in Baghdad. "There wasn't a worry from me because I believed that this was a war and in a war you wouldn't allow the broadcast to continue taking place"
I guess you could argue all of these were transitory (albeit devastating) but isn't everything?
Probably one of the more modern notions is that the current state of world affairs is somehow permanent. This complacency is both naiv and dangerous.
How'd that work out for ya?
An economy which has lifted millions out of poverty in the last decade. Chinese tolerate ( even admire) communists because they have delivered economic success, they surely have made a hard trade in terms of issues like free speech.
Has China's economy delivered success in excess of its democratic neighbors?
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Those in power in China have total control and aren't willing to secede from power at any cost. Journalists are a threat to the order they've very carefully built to ensure they stay in power. While we may not agree with the manner in which they maintain power, you have to understand their motivations for treating journalists and freedom of speech the way they do.
They cannot allow freedom of speech or such journalism at any cost. For if they do the country would realize the extent of corruption and violation of human rights and they would rise up in revolution and overthrow the government - an outcome which those in control will do everything in their power to prevent.
We must collectively all admit this and devise a system where people in power have no chance at all to become corrupt because they won't be having tight grip on anything. Maybe a long-term strategy which is continually worked on by people who stay in power no longer than a year? Don't know, people much better informed than me have tried and failed in this regard, many times.
But it's very clear that our current ruling systems don't work.
Reminds me of the Netflix doc "queen of versailles"
China got things to work though. It did it without a free press. It did it without an independent central bank. It did it without elections. It did it without Facebook, Google, YouTube and Twitter.
What did China get to work though? Nobody knows. That's because the western press ignores the inner working of the structure of their society. They only focus on what they do and how it is largely bad and can be remedied only by adopting our systems. There isn't any attempt at understanding or self-criticism.
I just find it annoying when there is ideological and cultural conflict that continues in an endless stalemate and every week it's groundhog day.
This is BS, even most Chinese don't know, that's because the Chinese government is pretty opaque and the media is state controlled. All decisions are well vetted before the public ever knows about them. Do you know who chose Xi Jinping to be president? Who were the other candidates? Why was he chosen and not anyone else? It was all done in a smoked filled room.
> They only focus on what they do and how it is largely bad and can be remedied only by adopting our systems. There isn't any attempt at understanding or self-criticism.
No, they actually report "news", the Chinese are shocked because, if you read the Chinese press, the media is simply a tool of public control. E.g. a WSJ financial article that merely reports facts about the Chinese economy is labelled as "biased" because it didn't try to inject an editorial into a news article on how great the future must be, so don't worry.
Um, every Chinese person I've ever talked to is well aware of the propaganda status of government news, and know that if you want a 3rd-party (not necessarily 'unbiased') opinion you can load up a VPN and go read some non-domestic sources, whether in English or Chinese.
> even most Chinese don't know
Yes, Xi Jinping's primary rival for top posts was Li Keqiang. The Chinese press regularly leaks juicy tidbits regarding political rivalries, because different factions of the CCP control different media outlets. Sometimes that rivalry breaks out so far that even Western outlets pick up on it [1].
What you have to understand is that many traditional societies (and most Asian societies) do not like to bring conflicts into public and into the open. Disputes are best resolved behind closed doors via negotiation.
This isn't just how things are done in politics, but this ethic permeates every level of Chinese society. Japan is very similar in this regard, and even though Japan nominally has voting, good luck being able to tell apart their two parties in policy terms or figuring out how policies were devised.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2016/07/24/chinas-x...
Chinese people are very smart and resilient. They thrive despite the communist party, not because of it. It wasn't until Deng Xiaoping said "hey, let's get out of the way" that things really took off. Of course, if you think Mao was so great, I guess we have to agree to disagree.
It seemed reasonable during the Cold War, when the First World was democratic and prosperous, and the Second World was authoritarian and much less prosperous. But now we're seeing that maybe that was just a coincidence, or perhaps democracy helps but isn't required.
I do wonder if China's prosperity will be more fragile. If the Chinese Communist Party turns more ideological, or another Mao-like figure shows up, it could all come tumbling down.
On the other hand, democracy is starting to look a little more fragile these days as well.
It is not Chinese citizens, with Chinese money, buying Chinese goods and supporting the Chinese economy. It is Americans and Europeans outsourcing manufacturing to China of American and European designs and selling mostly to Americans and Europeans with China taking a cut because they can do it cheaper than locally sourced manufacturing.
It really isn't that simple, of course every country has some R&D, some manufacturing and some purchasing. etc... But Expensive goods of almost any kind are American or European, if they are bought or sold. Even commodity goods aren't all made in China.
Their whole country is filling gaps that Western businesses leave behind. That isn't exactly "working", but it is clearly better than it used to be. If their citizens ever get freedom to run businesses like the west has, like they used to have in Taiwan, then China would be the economic superpower instead of just a major economic power. I don't think they can have that without democracy or something equally empowering.
Otherwise, Saudi Arabia? 30+ million people, high per-capita GDP, fairly high Human Development Index, totally non-democratic.
Russia might be a marginal example, with a moderately high HDI and a government at least pretends to be democratic.
I think Germany is a pretty good example if we're allowed to look at the past rather than just the present.
Saudi Arabia basically sells gold that springs out of the ground. Let's see how they fare when the price of their "gold" goes down to 1/100th.
Russia is not a developed country, it's a developing country.
And about Germany, we're talking about past 1945. Otherwise any comparison is useless since a relatively poor country in 2017 is richer than quite a few developed countries pre 1945 - progress does that to things :)
Well, due to criminalisation of reporting we can only see the successes, and hear rumours about the failures and costs.
The "inner working of the structure of their society" is not so much ignored as it's unknowable - to Chinese as well. It's covered in state secrecy. There's stuff that "everyone knows" but cannot be specific about such as corruption.
And the Chinese path to success is not unique except in scale. It's very similar to that of Singapore and South Korea. Or even Taiwan.
(It's important to remember that in the West much of the economic success pre-dates the liberalisation. At the time of the industrial revolution the UK was a deeply malfunctioning democracy of "rotten boroughs" until 1832. Parts of "liberal" Europe were dictatorships into the 1970s: Spain, Portugal, Greece. France (+) had a civil war in the 1960s. In the US the civil rights struggle and the Moon landings ran concurrently.)
(+) Constitutionally Algeria was "France" at the time
That's the interesting thing. Slavoj Zizek likes to talk about this topic. He calls it "Capitalism with Asian Values". I don't usually agree with him but I like that bit and well, he is entertaining to listen to.
He posits there is a breakdown in an official stand of the West where it was assumed Capitalism will eventually be followed with Democracy. The West has usually meddled and installed in dictators and supported brutal regime in many countries. The idea there was ok, they'll torture, murder, and abuse their people for a while, but at least as long as the capital revolves, eventually people will get Democracy. So that's why we tell everyone "We export Democracy" we fight for "Democracy" and so on.
The breakdown is that China and Singapore and other countries, mostly in Asia have shown that Capitalism and Democracy don't have to walk hand-in-hand. One can argue those non-Democratic countries can do capitalism better than we can even.
Here is an informal talk he gives on it:
We can trace the monetization of the European economy to sometime between the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance (e.g. 13-15th centuries). China invented fiat currency in the 2nd century BC [1] and first issued paper currency during the late Song dynasty in 1024 AD [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_(Chinese_coin)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking_in_China
Does anybody really believe that's the real reason?
> that's why we tell everyone "We export Democracy" we fight for "Democracy" and so on.
I think we tell everyone that as propaganda.
That implies that you know what those inner working are, and if we in the West knew, we would have a much more positive view of China.
Well if you really thought that was true, then you would have explained those inner workings to us, or at least given us some links.
I think there's literally nothing the West should do directly, and active pressure will actually be counterproductive.
I don't know if it's true about Europeans, but it's sad how Americans have a tendency to give strong opinions about topics without understanding the history, even when it's very relevant.
China endured constant humiliation and near-colonization by Western powers for a period of 300 years, including a series of unequal treaties and giving up Hong Kong, forced importation of opium, and military occupation of Beijing and the surrounding countryside. Americans may not have ever learned about this history, but this is drilled into every single Chinese student from a young age.
In that context, America or any other power telling China that it should 'learn from the West' and should adopt Western values, perhaps under the threat of sanctions or other consequences, will be automatically rejected not just by the Chinese government but also the Chinese people as a repeat of colonialism and Western 'arrogance'.
Better to let the people ask pointed questions of its own government. But if the West gets involved directly, then it becomes very easy for the government to tar domestic proponents of human rights as stooges of Western imperialists and then lock them all up, with the full support of the populace.
That's not to say that democratic principles aren't effective, but pure democracy often creates mob rule unless the population is equally homogenous and educated.
With 4-5 times the amount of people, even if China has triple the amount of shit happening as the US, it's still doing well. And that's just population. Add in the fact that China is so large that it can basically be thought of as multiple countries and territories in various stages of development and it's no small wonder the whole thing doesnt collapse. Nevermind lifting millions out of poverty.
You know what happened last time in China the power was given to the people? The cultural revolution happened. Educated people like prodessor and writers were beaten up every day by their fellow citizens until they committed suicide. Everyone was equal, and if you were smarter or richer then you were torn down.
tldr; it's more complex than you think.
we know Chinese communist party has strong influence in people way of life,but hugely disappointed to hear people can't even decide which religion to follow,if one wants to? I agree, every country has its own issue, but free speech and free rights are important. For ex, If social media like Facebook/google etc banned in other countries, there will be huge uproar by people in the name of free speech. Even the one who never used social media, will be against govt decision.
Sincerely hope common people from world's most largest population will have these rights in future.
Depending on the subject, the protest can be crushed, hence why most public spaces in the US have been bricked over for easy protest breakup.
What do you mean by this, exactly?
Note: love the downvotes, keep 'em coming. I'm just referencing history here :P
If we were advocating human rights we would also advocate against One China policy.
Okay, on to the Guardian article, which does well to quote the original content.
>When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak … as being spit on by the rest of the world—
Honestly, I don't know what that means - it's bordering unintelligible. The way he used pronouns in that sentence completely obfuscates who he was calling vicious and who he was calling strong.
So, I can go with how I feel about Trump as a person and use the Guardian as my source for how I should interpret what he said: "he praised the Chinese regime". Or I can just go with what I really feel which is "I have no idea what that means."
Strength is bad when evil people (THEY) use it but good when good people (US) use it.
He's using the King Arthurian logic of "Might makes Right in this world, but WE shall use Might in the service of Right" and holy cow my required liberal arts elective is directly applicable to modern government policy.
If that was someone describing a sports match, would you quibble with the word "praise"?
"When the <opposing team> poured into <the area>, the <home team> almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our <team> is right now perceived as weak … as being spit on by the rest of the world—."
Is it just because you know the current president of the USA is describing the deliberate murder of about 1000 pro-democracy protestors by an authoritarian state that you're experiencing cognitive dissonance and not wanting to accept the obvious interpretation?
He has a bunch of these kind of comments, about how Saddam used a little gas, and "everyone went crazy". You can watch some of them on on video, so no-one can influence your take on them.
I personally find that when Trump is talking about some atrocity that say a terrorist group has committed, he seems more angry that we're not allowed to behead or set fire to people or whatever, than he does about the fact that some individual got their head cut off or got set on fire. But maybe that's just my take.
>Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength.
That means war for the mainland Chinese and Chinese who live on an island which calls themselves non-Chinese (but actually Chinese in every way)
More like disappointed.
> But we get upset with Trump for talking to Taiwan...
I'm not sure where you are getting your info on this. It is really something I personally don't care about. I just hope China and Taiwan don't go to war, that would suck.
> If we were advocating human rights we would also advocate against One China policy.
This is a straw man. It would be much better for China to simply have better human rights, the sovereignty of Taiwan isn't related (and even they only got human rights in the 80s).
Saudis can be ignored for decades inspite of being the worst offenders on any parameter but Iran, Syria or Libya must be bombed. That itself stops any credible 'human rights concerns' by the US or Europe and infact shifts it the other way for warmongering, massive violations and basically destroying these countries. What can be worse for anyone genuinely concerned about human rights?
There have been zero consequences for US citizens involved in these violations from Iraq to Snowden so the idea that we can put the spotlight on anyone is laughable and smacks of dissonance. We can't be building the infrastructure to run total surveillance states, attack other countries at will and yet lecture others on human rights.
This is politics masquerading as concern and its the worst sort of exploitation that trivialize and make a mockery of 'human rights'. This type of sanctimonious posturing is completely disconnected from the way the world works and way past its sell by date. Integrity requires either stop the self serving geopolitical agendas or stop the posturing.
Not.
Anyway, this is why free speech is important.
This was just run-of-the-mill intimidation by those in power, of a free media. Really how far away is this from putting journalists in cages and having your audience shout at them at campaign rallies?
This is why I don't see China replacing US hegemony anytime soon in our lifetime. Civilizations upgrade themselves internally as they realize the overwhelming benefits of valuing human life.
China can point to our destruction while dealing with 3rd World African countries. They can show how their form of government is the same as ours. They can tell the Africans that it's okay to be a semi-brutal dictatorship. As a result the Chinese government can get along with new trade partners better than the US.
It's more likely that we are seeing an emboldened China that is completely oblivious to the nature of capitalism and it's incompatibility with a centralized economy in the long run.
I feel like we are going to deal with multiple Chinese states when the communist party inevitably loses it's grip on the populace.
It will be just like the old times, when China consisted of competing Kingdoms fighting for resources which really propelled it to reach hegemony in Asia.
If you think the story is inappropriate given those guidelines, you should flag it.
On the other hand, it has 100+ votes, so perhaps HN demographics is changing.
From the guidelines:
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
You could certainly say that a BBC group being forced to sign a confession for attempting to conduct an interview 'gratifies one's intellectual curiosity' about the world, but it could certainly fall under 'Most stories about politics, or crime', too.
Either way, as you point out, once a post has over 100 points you probably have your answer!
> once a post has over 100 points you probably have your answer!
Hence I'm genuinely curious about any shifts in the audience demographics that are occurring.