China and The West: Political Systems Compared and Contrasted

[rederob]

The quotes that you quoted me on, you did not answer them at all, again derail the topic. We can do this all day but you look worse each time you reply

So let me spell it out more clearly:

You also refer to some questionable websites,​

I linked a travel website that lets you holiday to places that celebrate minority cultures. That countered your proposition that this did not occur.​

You claimed it was a questionable website, yet it's really the content which needs to be discounted, and you did not do that. Minority groups not only do celebrate, but their celebrations are popular holiday destinations.​

Just like you tried to talk down Epoch times.​

I linked information which showed they were not credible. Did you read/watch what I linked to?​

You countered this with what?​

You know very well what I am saying but doing the typical ccp strategy, act dumb change the topic.​

That's just a repeat of the ad hominems you cast when you get caught out.​

​

Do you intend to post on topic here at all?

 

[againsthegrain]

So let me spell it out more clearly:

I linked a travel website that lets you holiday to places that celebrate minority cultures. That countered your proposition that this did not occur.​

You claimed it was a questionable website, yet it's really the content which needs to be discounted, and you did not do that. Minority groups not only do celebrate, but their celebrations are popular holiday destinations.​

I linked information which showed they were not credible. Did you read/watch what I linked to?​

You countered this with what?​

That's just a repeat of the ad hominems you cast when you get caught out.​

​

Do you intend to post on topic here at all?

You keep cherry picking non credible sources and using them for your fundamentals. A house built on clay will always be a house of lies.

A "travel" website that hides who it is registered to and where, which promotes ccp propaganda - very trustworthy source

The Nieman Foundation for Journalism is a left possibly far left media organisation which is criticising Epoch times (right wing) seems a bit bias there already. Since I didn't quote epoch times only pointing out your sources are no better ill leave it at that.

Anybody can go to Google and search the right keywords until they finally find a article to fit their confirmation bias. With that ill leave you here alone to shake fists and scream your tantrums at the walls in peace.

 

[rederob]

You keep cherry picking non credible sources and using them for your fundamentals. A house built on clay will always be a house of lies.

A "travel" website that hides who it is registered to and where, which promotes ccp propaganda - very trustworthy source

The Nieman Foundation for Journalism is a left possibly far left media organisation which is criticising Epoch times (right wing) seems a bit bias there already. Since I didn't quote epoch times only pointing out your sources are no better ill leave it at that.

Anybody can go to Google and search the right keywords until they finally find a article to fit their confirmation bias. With that ill leave you here alone to shake fists and scream your tantrums at the walls in peace.

The clear difference in this thread between me and you is that I justify what I post, while you just say whatever you like without substantiation, and at the same time completely miss what is relevant.

You fudge your blatant errors of understanding China by introducing new ones. The Nieman Foundation for Journalism for example is not a media organisation, is based at Harvard, and sets a very high bar for journalistic standards: my link was from what industry peers regard as a leading source of news about digital media for an international audience. Meanwhile you offered yet another of your baseless opinions.

After a 5 year hiatus in posts to this thread your first contribution was this:

China has environmental standards, what a joke

China has had to introduce and enforce stringent environmental standards because its population demanded it. Although an environmental law was in place back in 1989 it was lacklustre and seldom enforced because it held back development. That changed in 2015. An outline of reforms since then is here. In this case the joke seems to be on you.

Your subsequent posts degenerated.

 

[SyBoo]

The clear difference in this thread between me and you is that I justify what I post, while you just say whatever you like without substantiation, and at the same time completely miss what is relevant.

You fudge your blatant errors of understanding China by introducing new ones. The Nieman Foundation for Journalism for example is not a media organisation, is based at Harvard, and sets a very high bar for journalistic standards: my link was from what industry peers regard as a leading source of news about digital media for an international audience. Meanwhile you offered yet another of your baseless opinions.

After a 5 year hiatus in posts to this thread your first contribution was this:

China has had to introduce and enforce stringent environmental standards because its population demanded it. Although an environmental law was in place back in 1989 it was lacklustre and seldom enforced because it held back development. That changed in 2015. An outline of reforms since then is here. In this case the joke seems to be on you.

Your subsequent posts degenerated.

The @againsthegrain quip was in reply to a short post I made about the fact it that China blocked Australian thermal coal imports based on “environmental concerns” and then a few days later they announced that they were allowing more Indonesian thermal brown coal into their country.

The fact is that the Queensland thermal coal is a higher quality coal with a lower sulfur content than the Indonesian brown coal that replaced it. Also most of Queensland's coal is even better than most of the Canadian coal that replaced it.

To me that string of events is evidence of China's economic coercion.

I'm not going to engage any more. End.

 

[rederob]

The @againsthegrain quip was in reply to a short post I made about the fact it that China blocked Australian thermal coal imports based on “environmental concerns” and then a few days later they announced that they were allowing more Indonesian thermal brown coal into their country.

The fact is that the Queensland thermal coal is a higher quality coal with a lower sulfur content than the Indonesian brown coal that replaced it. Also most of Queensland's coal is even better than most of the Canadian coal that replaced it.

To me that string of events is evidence of China's economic coercion.

I'm not going to engage any more. End.

I completely agree with you.
You have reinforced the point that China can often exercise its trade power against those who act unfavourably towards it, without affecting its ability to source from elsewhere the commodities it needs. It's an underlying principle of their BRI.
My concern is that China will now be reactively financing overseas infrastructure that will allow them to more quickly wean themselves off key metals and energy commodities from Australia.

 

[Craton]

<snip>
There seems to be abundant evidence of western negativity towards China, but finding the evidence that makes the commentary credible is not easy. In that regard, we can go back to Australia's Huawei stance. Our government believes China's 5G network may pose a security threat if adopted here. They don't and won't say how. That's because they don't know, nor does the UK or USA:

Apart from Chinese subsidies to Huawai...

From a SMH article Feb last year

China's 2017 National Intelligence Law says: "All organisations and citizens shall support, assist, and co-operate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with the law." The US and Australia believe that Huawei could be used by the Chinese government for espionage.

Again from a SMH article Jan last year.

Huawei argues that despite being headquartered in an authoritarian country where the Chinese Communist Party’s intelligence and military apparatus reign supreme, it operates free of government influence. But Gilding (doesn’t buy this. He also insists his problem is not with Huawei, but with the Chinese state’s record of cyber attacks on Australia - and the fact that it has the power to direct private firms to follow its commands.

“We are not anti-China by any means. It is just that China has form over a decade of large-scale hacks of our networks.”

This, state control, is clearly the big issue and that there is no guarantee "critical infrastructure" will not be compromised. Threat actors especially state controlled, are aplenty as can be seen on this APT (Advanced Persistent Threat) Google Sheet.
Yes, it may have a Western bias but the fact remains that the connected world is a battle ground. and threat actors needed to be mitigated.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

The purpose of forums is to discuss and debate topics of interest in good faith, which means:

1. Without insults, or personal attacks
2. Treating others with respect at all times irrespective of whether you agree with them or not
3. Taking on board the views of others and engaging them honestly in the service of a genuine exchange of ideas
4. The less dogmatic and more open minded people are the better chance there is of a civil and constructive debate or discussion.

@Joe Blow is a very wise man and posters on this thread would be well advised to follow his advice.

I have on occasions been pulled up when I get heated and in retrospect it has always been a good call.

Nobody is the source of all wisdom.

And btw many philoosphers and scientists now believe free will does not exist. So what you post and what you believe has been predetermined since the Big Bang by the actions of energy and particles. So don't take yeselves too seriously.

And @Joe Blow has more energy and particles on this forum than any other bastard.

gg

 

[rederob]

Apart from Chinese subsidies to Huawai...

From a SMH article Feb last year


Again from a SMH article Jan last year.


This, state control, is clearly the big issue and that there is no guarantee "critical infrastructure" will not be compromised. Threat actors especially state controlled, are aplenty as can be seen on this APT (Advanced Persistent Threat) Google Sheet.
Yes, it may have a Western bias but the fact remains that the connected world is a battle ground. and threat actors needed to be mitigated.

First, all countries that I am aware require their organisations and citizens to "co-operate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with the law"
Secondly, why would we be unconcerned about companies like Google, Apple and Microsoft given the USA has unrivalled cyber intelligence skills?

Is it that we can trust America but not China?
And what is it that we are trusting them to do, or not to do?
By way of background the UK for example has been using Huawei equipment for some 20 years without concern.

Isn't the point this: that irrespective of the technology employed (be it American, Chinese or Russian) the true vulnerability is through covert cyber skills per se (note your APT concerns), and not the hardware which Huawei make? It seems to make no difference who makes a product if it can be compromised externally.
A more recent problem that has been enshrined in US legislation is the preclusion of certain technologies from supply to China and specific companies.
By attempting to isolate China we are actually doing the opposite of what was intended. China has been adapting to isolationism through innovation and is now the world leader:

 

[over9k]

Are you guys still arguing with that crank?

Just get the mods to ban him & be done with it.

 

[rederob]

@over9k said

"Are you guys still arguing with that crank?​

Just get the mods to ban him & be done with it."​

Why not present something other than your baseless opinion?
This thread is about Australia's largest trading partner, and some of the comments here show a mind numbing level of ignorance about it.
No other country has a bigger impact on our economy.

 

[SirRumpole]

Is it that we can trust America but not China?

Er well, they did defend Australia during WW2.

What has China done for us apart from buy stuff from us that they actually need ?

 

[againsthegrain]

Er well, they did defend Australia during WW2.

What has China done for us apart from buy stuff from us that they actually need ?

Possibly cyber attacks? but they were friendly cyber attacks so its ok

Not to forget some funny photoshop pictures too but all in good fun and taste between "friends"

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Er well, they did defend Australia during WW2.

What has China done for us apart from buy stuff from us that they actually need ?

China provided many migrants during the 19th Century Gold Rush. Many were successful diggers and their descendants live on in Australia.

Many Chinese people provided protein and fat for some of our Indigenous Peoples I am told.

Many were merchants and shopkeepers providing food and supplies during the various gold rushes.

What did the Ancient Romans ever do for Australia? Diddly squat. They only got as far as the Bosphorus.

Empires come and go. We just need to be assertive with them every now and then.

gg

 

[Dona Ferentes]

1. China provided many migrants during the 19th Century Gold Rush. Many were successful diggers and their descendants live on in Australia.
2. Many Chinese people provided protein and fat for some of our Indigenous Peoples I am told.
3. Many were merchants and shopkeepers providing food and supplies during the various gold rushes.
4. What did the Ancient Romans ever do for Australia? Diddly squat. They only got as far as the Bosphorus.
Empires come and go. We just need to be assertive with them every now and then.

gg

1. New Gold Mountain. (California being "Gold Mountain")
2. Grain fed; yum. Better than salted mutton and damper.
4. Actually, they got as far as the Syrian Desert. And provided a name australis, meaning "southern", and specifically from the hypothetical Terra Australis postulated in pre-modern geography.

 

[Craton]

First, all countries that I am aware require their organisations and citizens to "co-operate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with the law"
Secondly, why would we be unconcerned about companies like Google, Apple and Microsoft given the USA has unrivalled cyber intelligence skills?
View attachment 123504
Is it that we can trust America but not China?
And what is it that we are trusting them to do, or not to do?
By way of background the UK for example has been using Huawei equipment for some 20 years without concern.

Isn't the point this: that irrespective of the technology employed (be it American, Chinese or Russian) the true vulnerability is through covert cyber skills per se (note your APT concerns), and not the hardware which Huawei make? It seems to make no difference who makes a product if it can be compromised externally.
A more recent problem that has been enshrined in US legislation is the preclusion of certain technologies from supply to China and specific companies.
By attempting to isolate China we are actually doing the opposite of what was intended. China has been adapting to isolationism through innovation and is now the world leader:
View attachment 123509

Regardless of how we interpret the first point on a global scale, isn't it a fact that the onus on the Chinese citizen to comply without retribution is a moot point?

Surely, who we trust is a matter of how that sovereign state aligns with our perceived ideas of society, national identity etc. A little old but interesting to compare 2001 to 2021 Perceptions and Threats to our govt. in this research paper.

UK does have concerns and that relates to the way 5G operates. With 1G/2G/3G/4G the infrastructure had the "core", which was seen as secure and it was protected from the "edge". With 5G "core" devices are at the "edge" making 5G more vulnerable to attack. Moreso, BT had already a Huawei 4G network in place and the cost to upgrade, plus the fact that the subsidized Huawei products were approx. 30% cheaper, made it a no brainer for BT to stick with the incumbent supplier.

Unconcerned about the "Socials" and "Big Tech"?
No me! I have always said that our govt. was reacting (and very slowly) to the ever-connected world instead of being proactive right from the get-go. So now of course, the catch up is in full swing and some measures, like data retention policies, are seen as too draconian. I'll close this point off and say that I've never thought it was healthy that FB, Google and the like have so much domination. While the world is "safe", who really cares though eh?
No one, until there's a data breech.

I am well aware of the competitive advantage that the USA imposes on tech. Whether it's changed from the min. 18 months to three year wait before the rest of the world sees/has access to that tech I wouldn't know but, I'd guess it may even be longer now. Some tech I'd guess will simply and secretly remain in-house. Another guess is that there is a lot of tech in Asia that we'll never know about, well, not for many a decade and then it'll be too late.

With regard to Huawei, as (in my opinion) basically a state owned company producing telecommunication devices that drive essential/critical infrastructure, yes I am very concerned that pressure from the Chinese politburo will force a backdoor to be included as standard (but unbeknown) device feature. Ciphers in the digital signal like steganography would not be something new.

The graph on patents isn't all that remarkable, interesting but not remarkable.
What is remarkable it the China question. A complex and vexing one which requires diplomacy that is far beyond what I'm capable of and certainly not in my pay grade however, and I'm all for getting along with China and indeed, all nations including our indigenous first nation brothers and sisters.

How we do that must align with what it means to be Australian (something that Scomo bangs on about from time-to-time) I'm all for sensible diplomacy, concise negotiation and fair trade talks with our (or any) trading partner, but kowtowing isn't in our nature as we tend to call a spade a spade. Knowing the cultural differences, how to align these or make compromises on both sides is probably the key for the betterment of all.

In closing, I'm not saying we in the West are faultless but I'd rather live here where freedom of speech and indeed movement is a given. Pursuing those two things in China (and else where) could very well cost you your life. Yeah, strongly against that thanks.

 

[qldfrog]

where freedom of speech and indeed movement is a given.

Hum that is getting a bit far stretched for these 2 points here now isn't it?
Not killed but definitively jailed

 

[againsthegrain]

I think you are forgetting to add that most countries will not use a citizens family back home as a way to control and blackmail that citizen into doing "tasks" when not on home soil

 

[rederob]

Regardless of how we interpret the first point on a global scale, isn't it a fact that the onus on the Chinese citizen to comply without retribution is a moot point?

No.
There is no logic to that point.

Surely, who we trust is a matter of how that sovereign state aligns with our perceived ideas of society, national identity etc.

No.
Our so called 5-Eyes agreement allows either party to spy on another if they believe circumstances warrant. So we cannot even trust our closest allies!

UK does have concerns and that relates to the way 5G operates. With 1G/2G/3G/4G the infrastructure had the "core", which was seen as secure and it was protected from the "edge". With 5G "core" devices are at the "edge" making 5G more vulnerable to attack. Moreso, BT had already a Huawei 4G network in place and the cost to upgrade, plus the fact that the subsidized Huawei products were approx. 30% cheaper, made it a no brainer for BT to stick with the incumbent supplier.

First, you can read Huawei's KPMG audited annual reports to discover Chinese subsidies amount to a small fraction of one percent of revenue.
Second, currently Huawei is the only provider of a wide range of 5G equipment so UK's banning will place them well behind other European nation 5G adopters.
Third, prior to pressure placed on the UK, possible vulnerabilities were known and regarded as manageable. All such systems have vulnerabilities and nations such as Canada exclude specific Huawei equipment from certain operational areas.

I am well aware of the competitive advantage that the USA imposes on tech. Whether it's changed from the min. 18 months to three year wait before the rest of the world sees/has access to that tech I wouldn't know but, I'd guess it may even be longer now. Some tech I'd guess will simply and secretly remain in-house. Another guess is that there is a lot of tech in Asia that we'll never know about, well, not for many a decade and then it'll be too late.

It's not about a competitive advantage at all. It's an outright banning of supply, and applies to manufacturers in other nations as well. It's classic American bullyboy tactics, but is already being worked around.

With regard to Huawei, as (in my opinion) basically a state owned company producing telecommunication devices that drive essential/critical infrastructure, yes I am very concerned that pressure from the Chinese politburo will force a backdoor to be included as standard (but unbeknown) device feature.

Because of the ongoing level of testing and scrutiny of Huawei equipment, and the sophistication of their network security technology, any attempt to install a backdoor into their hardware or software would be detected by a customer. The principal vulnerability of any technology is via hacking, and Huawei's systems have never yet been breached.

In closing, I'm not saying we in the West are faultless but I'd rather live here where freedom of speech and indeed movement is a given. Pursuing those two things in China (and else where) could very well cost you your life. Yeah, strongly against that thanks.

I've been to China many times and never had to worry about what I said or where I went.
But I agree that living in Australia is pretty darn good!

 

[rederob]

I am well aware of the competitive advantage that the USA imposes on tech.

It's not about a competitive advantage at all. It's an outright banning of supply, and applies to manufacturers in other nations as well. It's classic American bullyboy tactics, but is already being worked around.

I had not realised that America has now gone beyond that, and is now involved in blatant international economic coercion, eg:

"Embassy in sensational email to Politiken"​

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I had not realised that America has now gone beyond that, and is now involved in blatant international economic coercion, eg:

"Embassy in sensational email to Politiken"​

I unfortunately allowed my subscription to Politken lapse.

Would it be possible for you to summarise the content @rederob .

gg