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.

  • @Godless_Nematode@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    102 years ago

    Steps to destroy the CCP. 1) Move all US and EU manufacturing to China. 2) Ban all Chinese manufactured goods. Sounds like a sound, well thought out plan to me. What could go wrong?

  • Ninmi
    link
    fedilink
    12 years ago

    What really worries me are the dependencies we have in countries with authoritarian governments. China has now twice reaffirmed its support for Russia, despite Russia’s thinly veiled threats of nuclear strikes if its conquest is meddled with. How is this not an enormous red line? You cannot get a clearer warning sign. European energy dependencies are prolonging the war in Ukraine, and China’s support shows they’re willing to do the same. There must be some huge warning bells ringing across the world right now.

    • @guojing@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      At least Russia has never used nuclear weapons against civilians, unlike a certain criminal entity.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
      link
      fedilink
      12 years ago

      Every government is inherently authoritarian because it derives its authority from its monopoly on violence. Pushing pipelines through indigenous lands, breaking up protests against inequality, and evicting homeless people from parks are all examples of western governments enforcing their authority through force. Any law that government enforces is the government exercising its authority over the public.

      That said, authority is not an inherently a negative thing. In fact, any industrialized society requires authority to function. The real question is whose interests the government represents and on whose behalf its authority is exercised.

      Chinese government relies on social and economic stability to stay in power creating a natural alignment between the interests of the government and the people. On the other hand, western governments are primarily concerned with the interests of the capital owning class. Majority of our politicians are wealthy capitalists themselves, and we have a revolving door between business and politics leading to further conflict of interest. The working class has hardly any representation in our government, and the policy that we see is passed predominantly in the interest of the owning class.

      CPC has a very consistent track record of working in the interest of the public, and it’s also far more engaged with the public than any western parties. Party members do real work within their community instead of just appearing once every few years to ask for donations for their campaigns. Party members were on the front lines during the start of the pandemic and even died while helping arrest the pandemic within their communities. This is not something we’d ever see members of a political party do in the west.

      There is a big difference between being able to criticize the system and being an actual stakeholder in the decision making process. Western public is certainly free to criticize and complain, but has no actual leverage within our system. All we get to do is vote for which member of the ruling class will govern over us.

      It’s also clear that Chinese system very much encourages constructive criticism because it’s evolved a lot more rapidly than our own. Such political evolution requires having a diversity of opinion and open debate. Deng reforms are a perfect example of that. The ability to integrate aspects of capitalism into their system shows that it’s in fact far more flexible than our own. There is no chance for our politicians to even consider discussing how concepts from Marxism could be integrated within our capitalist systems.

      China has plenty of problems, and their system is obviously not perfect. However, this system has proven itself to be both stable and adaptable. It doesn’t suffer from regular economic crashes seen in western capitalism, it continues to improve quality of life for the majority, and enjoys broad public support.

      • Ninmi
        link
        fedilink
        -1
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        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.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
          link
          fedilink
          -12 years ago

          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.

          • Ninmi
            link
            fedilink
            22 years ago

            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.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
              link
              fedilink
              -12 years ago

              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.