Those principles are not universal because different cultures have different values, beliefs, standards, and situations. If you've been taught otherwise then you've been brainwashed by a propaganda machine designed to motivate you to support and fight wars of value imposition like the Iraq or Afghanistan wars.
Plus, no country was around to teach the Americans how to build a society back then, and you could say we turned out fine enough.
We are big proponents of democracy but not only do we acknowledge that democracy is not a perfect system to begin with (something we are taught in schools), but our version of democracy isn't even a perfect execution of it, much like how China isn't really a communist utopia. We are more like a capitalist democracy, where effectively the wealthy can leverage more of a vote (through advertising, propaganda, PACs, etc). So if all our systems are flawed, who are we really to impose our flawed values. The answer is that the real motivation for imposing our values isn't some belief in fundamental ideals or values, but rather for American interests. We didn't setup a puppet bureaucrat in Afghanistan because of democracy, we just wanted a friendly government in the Middle East. The CIA operating in your country doesn't give you relief! No, they are not there to help YOU or your people.
China is a slave country controlled by dictators against the will of the people, not just "a different culture".
Rather than making such strong remarks telling Chinese people what they are, you can just go there and ask them yourself instead of armchair posturing.
I wouldn’t though, lest you be arrested like Michael Spavor.
Critics have accused China of treating both Spavor and Kovrig as political bargaining chips, held as part of what is known as "hostage diplomacy".
Wasn’t so much the asking questions as it was a diplomat used as a bargaining chip since a Huawei exec was also captured.
...that's exactly why I wouldn't travel to China whilst Xi is power.
If it helps. I like US better.
As a “value” democracy gets tricky. What does it mean exactly? Even within the US it takes on many contradictory forms. And why does democracy matter? Is it a worthy value simply because it’s the least bad political system? That’s not very universal as a reason, and surely not a good reason to make war.
Where I suppose I diverge is that I think freedom of expression (and, inextricably, guarantees of privacy) actually are universal values that cross whatever kind of boundary. What has nationality to do with it? Call me a myopic American but its hard for me to accept the idea that freedom of speech could be a culturally specific value.
Now should we enforce values with coercion? Generally I think you and I agree that we shouldn’t. But information technology (and, to a great extent, strong cryptography) provides an enormous (peaceful) opportunity to durably promote those values at an anthropocene scale.
Maybe nobody externally taught these values in the formation of the US, but it’s maybe also worth remarking that the formation greatly benefited from an unusually free press for that time period.
That's certainly something the Chinese people deserve to have, but it's also not our fight, especially if the people of China are less interested in it than foreign spectators seem to be. Since their economy and standard of living is rising and more or less doing fairly well, it raises questions of motivations when we really want them to do something for them under the guise of for us. If we value our democracy or freedom of speech and press more than the average Chinese citizen does, then something is probably up... and something is in fact up, because wars are usually fought under the pretense of righteousness. But in reality almost all wars are fought in the interest of self-preservation and self-interest. US foreign policy is pretty much bound to be purely in the interest of its citizens much like how a corporation is bound to make a profit. If we actually promote free speech and democracy, it'll be due to self-interest, because for the simple reason that a politician can't really justify that they did something for the good of other non-constituents and hope to be re-elected.
Free speech is a great ideal, but it's also a tool used by the enemy for disinformation, destabilization, and defamation. This is similar to how encryption is great, but also empowers criminals just as it empowers resistance to tyranny. Some peoples will choose to have less free speech for more stability, and that is their choice. If the EU started fervently advocating for more consumer privacy protections in the US when we actual Americans don't care about it too much, we'd probably raise an eyebrow too on their actual motivations on matters of domestic concern.
Personally, from a righteousness point of view, if we really wanted to help people we'd take them into our borders and integrate them into productive members of our own society. Anything else is illegitimate. If we truly believe China is going the wrong way then we should take in their citizens who agree with us, and give them the opportunity to shine here. Humans are a resource, not a liability. If we can't take them in, then it's also not our place to tell them how to go about their lives. If we really want people to adopt our values, we should integrate them. And for the most part the US does a pretty good job of this as we're probably one of the most multi-cultural societies on this planet.
Yup. Well, that, plus your third-world health-care(lessness) system, and your unbridled appetite for guns to kill each other with.
Sorry if this comes as a surprise to you, but: Honestly, you are barbarians.
So I’m quite happy that Apple has to follow local rules, and I respect Chinese citizens enough to believe that they can advocate for the change they want to see, over time.
I think gun laws in the US are terrible but I recognize the US has a different history and it's not my place to tell them how to live. Simple as that.
It’s not like anyone in China can vote their leaders out or even say anything negative publicly.
This notion that you somehow can't figure out what the Chinese want, as if you couldn't talk to them, which you literally can, you could just visit China actually, just shows that the entire discourse happens at some sort of meme level.
[1]https://qz.com/2014939/chinese-internet-users-reject-beijing...
If you get a bunch of people who are completed disconnected from a constituency deciding what’s best for them you end up with the former British colony of America, the former democratic Afghanistan. As its clear you don’t know the actual sentiments of Chinese people it’s a bit ludicrous to suggest that you know what’s good for them better than they do.
Nobody fought the American war of independence on behalf of Americans. It’s arrogant to think that others need us to liberate them from some imagined subjugation.
You're very obviously using that as a straw man argument to avoid discussing democracy and democratic mandate.