For once again the US make an effort to contain China. Recently the Federal Communications Commission revoked a license of the Chinese telecommunication corporation Pacific Networks and its subsidiary ComNet LLC. American regulator stated that these companies were banned over national security concerns as they were controlled be the Chinese government. And there is more to come. At the same time the US Customs and Borders Protection banned all goods made by one of the largest Chinese sportswear producer Li-Ning. The Department stated that the company was accused of using North Korean labor in its supply chains and that it is against fundamental human rights. That was amusing to hear as earlier the same measures were implemented under the pretext of countering forced labor of the Uigurs in Xinjiang. And that is not all. The New York State Attorney’s Office brought in action several cases on attempts of Chinese secret services to put pressure on expat community and to organize a surveillance of the most prominent dissidents. Three American and two Chinese citizens have been charged with working in the US on behalf of the Ministry of State Security of China. With a touch of propagandism the Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen of the Justice Department’s National Security Division declared that American authorities intend to make every effort possible to stand against repressive policies of authoritarian Beijing in the US According to authorities, Chinese intelligence agency tried to expose a certain politician of Asian origin to prevent his nomination to the US House of Representatives. It is believed that this information is referred to Yang Xiong, who is seeking nomination from Democratic Party. It is worth mentioning that Washington is stepping up its pressure on Beijing on all fronts. As a matter of principle, American politicians make no secret of their long-run objective to deter Chinese technological and industrial development to the limit. The vector is set, and now they are just following it. At the same time, the American side also demonstrate its determination to oppose “malicious influence” of the Chinese Communist Party abroad.
On monopoly of violence, how do you view the US constitution’s second amendment? Considering (as far as I’ve understood) it was drafted specifically to make sure the government does not hold monopoly on violence. As far as I can tell, Chinese people have neither the freedoms nor the means to fight for them. It would’ve taken violence for the 2 million people on the streets of Hong Kong to actually get what they wanted, but the mainland started eating them up early.
I also don’t see how all governments have said monopoly on violence since a properly functioning democracy would make violent protests meaningless. It sounds like a take from someone who hasn’t actually heard of a country that didn’t function by simply beating up all dissenters. A lot of the problems you list are problems found in the US, and I think we can all agree the US isn’t the best example. You’re better off looking towards northern Europe for that role model democracy.
What comes to the pandemic, I’m still interested in what China’s responsibility is in the worldwide outbreak. As far as I know, Taiwan was the only country actively warning the rest of the world and preparing for the worst.
And no, the fact that vast majority would disagree with a proposal doesn’t mean one isn’t able to discuss integrating any alternative system.
Whatever China has in terms of economic stability is hardly worth the liberties sacrificed. Of course, I don’t have to live in China. The whole point of my original post was that our dependency towards cheap Chinese goods is extremely likely bolstering the next unprovoked invasion and humanitarian catastrophe.
I don’t think the second amendment means much in practical terms. Monopoly on violence also means a legal monopoly to decide when violence is justified. The citizens are also held to a different legal standard than the police.
Meanwhile, Hong Kong protests were handled with far less violence than George Floyd protests in US. This is actually perfect example of US being harsher on dissent than China. US also holds over 20% of world’s prison population, and incarceration far higher than China. If anything, the percentage of the populace that the regime keeps imprisoned is the best measure for how authoritarian it is.
There has never been a society in the history of humanity where organized violence didn’t occur. The kind of democracy you envision does not exist in practice.
As for Taiwan, even the US doesn’t recognize it as an independent country. And of course, citizens of China enjoy far more liberties than citizens of US. They enjoy such freedoms as having an education or not having to die on the street when they can’t afford healthcare. They also enjoy the freedom of not dying from the plague for the past two years.
I don’t know the extent of governmental violence in either protests or how they compare, but since the Hong Kongers (to my knowledge) never really resorted to violence, all the mainland Chinese rulers had to do was to wait for people to get tired. Covid dealt with the rest.
Isn’t the world (not just the US) not recognizing Taiwan just another symptom of China’s enormous economic leverage? Which is exactly what I’m talking about on my first comment, and why we really have to sever such dependencies.
I also do not understand this fixation on the US. I get that the country is ridiculous. Their prison system is ridiculous. Their healthcare system is the dictionary definition of ridiculous. Yet I do not understand how one could consider China to offer more civil liberties than the US, but just pick almost any European country instead then.
HK protesters used extreme violence. They even set a man on fire at one point. Meanwhile, the US hasn’t recognized Taiwan for many decades while China had no economic leverage to speak of.
Finally, every country restricts civil liberties in one way or another. So, I’m curious on what basis you’ve decided that the west got this equation fundamentally right while countries like China got it wrong. Seems to me that this is just the anchoring effect of you having grown up in a particular social order, and you’re treating it as a sensible default simply because that’s what you’re familiar with.
It seems that China’s society is doing much better with the problems that face it than any western society at the moment. Combination of political instability, growing inequality, and deteriorating material conditions are already leading to growing civil unrest across the western world. Protests are becoming more and more frequent in many countries like US, Canada, France, and UK. Unravelling social order is not exactly a sign of a healthy society.