China: As it is

[basilio]

It is interesting to consider our views of China. I suppose we all recognise it is an authoritarian state BUT they are our biggest trading partner, they do send a truck load of tourists, students and home buyers to us and frankly, most investors aren't that fussed about the ethics of the places they make profits in.

So we have basically accepted the line of a largely benign if-a-bit-authoritarian neighbour.

Australian Story tonight presents the views and experience of a young Chinese girl who has gone from devoted party follower to kick asx critic. Its a bit of a challenge .

Thoughts ?

From 'perfect Chinese daughter' to Communist Party critic, why Vicky Xu is exposing China to scrutiny

"If something happens to me you know I've been murdered."
It's a joke journalist Vicky Xiuzhong Xu makes in her stand-up comedy routine, but the reality is she's had a lot of death threats.
Key points

• Xu says she studied at a uni that "cultivates TV personalities who are politically loyal" with impeccable English
  
  • Her mindshift came when she interviewed Chinese dissidents in Australia
  • Xu was behind recent expose on forced Uyghur labour in factories across China supplying brands such as Nike and Apple

She was, not so long ago, a model Chinese citizen; loyal to her government and its ideology.
At university in Beijing, she was training to become an English-language broadcaster, politely presenting state-approved news to the world.
Today, firebrand journalist Xu challenges just about every Western stereotype of a typical Chinese student. She's outspoken, edgy, disarmingly frank and loud, and her disillusionment with the Communist Party has been so complete that at the age of only 25 there may be no way back for Xu.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-09/vicky-xu-exposing-chinas-human-rights-abuses/11954794

 

[basilio]

Did anyone else check out this Australian Story ?
Quite chilling ?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-09/vicky-xu-exposing-chinas-human-rights-abuses/11954794

 

[greggles]

Realising the world is now looking at them, China attempts to explain why the Taiwan situation is different from the Ukraine situation.

 

[rederob]

Vicky Xu works for ASPI.
While China is not perfect, ASPI makes Chinese propaganda look like kindergarten play.
What is most unusual about western claims is the fact that the Muslim population has increased markedly in Xinjiang over the past decade. If this group is supposed to be suppressed and incarcerated in large numbers, why do they go to live in this in remote region in western China?

Here are some alternative views from westerners visiting China:



I have been following this issue relatively closely since 2014 after an attack in Kunming railway station, having been there the previous year. Since then I have seen no verified evidence confirming western claims of forced labour, concentration camps or genocide. On the other hand I have seen most of these claims thoroughly debunked.

This site has some posters still believing Trump won the 2020 election, with overwhelming evidence this is a lie. Where exactly is Xu's evidence that makes her claims credible?

 

[rederob]

Realising the world is now looking at them, China attempts to explain why the Taiwan situation is different from the Ukraine situation.

Australia adheres to the one China policy that is almost universally accepted. Taiwan is not recognised as a nation.
Imagine Tasmania wanting to separate from Australia, and China saying they will supply them with weapons so it won't be invaded.
That's the exact equivalence of Dutton's recent remarks on Taiwan.

On the other hand Ukraine is universally recognised as a nation and Russia wants to now subjugate it. If you cannot see the difference then maybe post something that shows what you do.

 

[Ferret]

Imagine Tasmania wanting to separate from Australia, and China saying they will supply them with weapons so it won't be invaded.
That's the exact equivalence of Dutton's recent remarks on Taiwan.

The situation would be very different.

If Tasmania wanted to secede from mainland Australia we would express regret and try to convince them to stay. We would not refuse to accept their choice and resort to threats of invasion to bring them back.

 

[rederob]

The situation would be very different.

If Tasmania wanted to secede from mainland Australia we would express regret and try to convince them to stay. We would not refuse to accept their choice and resort to threats of invasion to bring them back.

Excellent, so you think Australia would be happy to have independent Tasmania as a nation armed with China's nuclear weapons?

 

[Ferret]

Totally implausible that Tasmania would have Chinese nuclear weapons stationed there.

 

[rederob]

Totally implausible that Tasmania would have Chinese nuclear weapons stationed there.

Only because you cannot imagine the steps that would lead to Tasmania wanting to separate.
Let's say China's BRI enabled hundreds of billions of dollars investment in green energy, and turned the island into an energy superpower.
Not happy with the meagre GST returns offered (a la WA's situation) Tasmania sides with China to further develop its economy.
I don't think that is implausible.

But it's somewhat beside the point. The logic of Dutton's stance on Taiwan is severely lacking, and ok only if you think we should go about arming any entity which holds Australia's dislike for China.

 

[greggles]

Australia adheres to the one China policy that is almost universally accepted. Taiwan is not recognised as a nation.
Imagine Tasmania wanting to separate from Australia, and China saying they will supply them with weapons so it won't be invaded.
That's the exact equivalence of Dutton's recent remarks on Taiwan.

On the other hand Ukraine is universally recognised as a nation and Russia wants to now subjugate it. If you cannot see the difference then maybe post something that shows what you do.

There are differences, but there are also similarities. My post simply pointed out that with the eyes of the world turning to China, given they have uttered similar rhetoric in the past regarding Taiwan as Putin has regarding Ukraine, they are now trying to explain how the two situations are different.

One thing is very clear though, Taiwan does not want to be a part of Mainland China. Should Mainland China invade and subjugate them?

 

[rederob]

There are differences, but there are also similarities. My post simply pointed out that with the eyes of the world turning to China, given they have uttered similar rhetoric in the past regarding Taiwan as Putin has regarding Ukraine, they are now trying to explain how the two situations are different.

One thing is very clear though, Taiwan does not want to be a part of Mainland China. Should Mainland China invade and subjugate them?

You write from a western perspective only.
We either adhere to a one China policy in Australia or we do not.
If we did not recognise Ukraine because we had a one Russia policy, do you think we would be sending weapons to Ukraine?

 

[greggles]

You write from a western perspective only.

I accept that I do. Are you suggesting that you write from a Chinese perspective?

We either adhere to a one China policy in Australia or we do not.
If we did not recognise Ukraine because we had a one Russia policy, do you think we would be sending weapons to Ukraine?

Given that Taiwan does not want to be a part of Mainland China, is there any harm in letting a peaceful and independent people secede from Mainland China? Or should there be an invasion and subjugation?

 

[rederob]

I accept that I do. Are you suggesting that you write from a Chinese perspective?

No.
Very few countries worry about what China thinks of the war in Ukraine.
It's more curious that we in Australia are not too worried that India, a member of the QUAD, has not been critical of Russia. Who are they really siding with?

Given that Taiwan does not want to be a part of Mainland China, is there any harm in letting a peaceful and independent people secede from Mainland China? Or should there be an invasion and subjugation?

There have been numerous secession movements in Australia that we have not been happy with.
I note you keep sidestepping our One China policy.

 

[greggles]

No.
Very few countries worry about what China thinks of the war in Ukraine.
It's more curious that we in Australia are not too worried that India, a member of the QUAD, has not been critical of Russia. Who are they really siding with?

I would say that India are taking a position that is politically expedient for them.

There have been numerous secession movements in Australia that we have not been happy with.
I note you keep sidestepping our One China policy.

Similarly, our One China policy is a position that is politically expedient for ourselves as a nation. I do not think there would be many Australians who would be philosophically opposed to Taiwan seceding from Mainland China, given the CCP's record of political repression and human rights abuses.

 

[rederob]

I would say that India are taking a position that is politically expedient for them.

Then what is China doing and why should it be an issue?

Similarly, our One China policy is a position that is politically expedient for ourselves as a nation. I do not think there would be many Australians who would be philosophically opposed to Taiwan seceding from Mainland China, given the CCP's record of political repression and human rights abuses.

Our position and our actions are contradictory.
This is a world stage we are talking about where words have national level consequences.
Australia is in the dog house as far as China is concerned because we are diplomatically inept.
We regularly beat war drums over the South China Sea but China has not been in any military incident that I am aware. Of course we had no problems stealing Australia from the then natives a few hundred years back, but when thousands of years of history intertwines Taiwan with mainland China we think there's a problem.
No hypocrisy there!

 

[greggles]

Then what is China doing and why should it be an issue?

Taiwan is a functioning democracy and has a thriving economy. After seeing what China has done in Hong Kong, why would Taiwan want to surrender their successful nation to regress to Chinese totalitarianism. Taiwan is a model for what China might have been without the authoritarianism of the CCP.

Our position and our actions are contradictory.
This is a world stage we are talking about where words have national level consequences.
Australia is in the dog house as far as China is concerned because we are diplomatically inept.
We regularly beat war drums over the South China Sea but China has not been in any military incident that I am aware. Of course we had no problems stealing Australia from the then natives a few hundred years back, but when thousands of years of history intertwines Taiwan with mainland China we think there's a problem.
No hypocrisy there!

Our position and our actions may be contradictory. I have not said I am a supporter of all the actions or positions of the Morrison government. But I still think that our position on Taiwan is simply a politically expedient position. I think most would be happy to see Taiwan secede from Mainland China. I think the Taiwanese would probably be the most happy of all. After all, they currently rate 94/100 on freedom by Freedom House while China rates 9/100.

So, should Mainland China invade Taiwan, subjugate them and dismantle their democracy and freedoms? What is your position?

Also, do you think the Chinese societal model is a better model than that of Taiwan?

 

[rederob]

Taiwan is a functioning democracy and has a thriving economy. After seeing what China has done in Hong Kong, why would Taiwan want to surrender their successful nation to regress to Chinese totalitarianism. Taiwan is a model for what China might have been without the authoritarianism of the CCP.

It's an interesting democracy for sure:

I don't think China wants a parliament like that.

Our position and our actions may be contradictory. I have not said I am a supporter of all the actions or positions of the Morrison government. But I still think that our position on Taiwan is simply a politically expedient position.

I am the same on China, but unlike Australia it has no contradictory position. As I said, Australia considers Taiwan part of China so proposing to provide it with military support is no different to the Tasmanian analogy I presented earlier. It makes no sense and further antagonises our relationship with them.

I think most would be happy to see Taiwan secede from Mainland China. I think the Taiwanese would probably be the most happy of all. After all, they currently rate 94/100 on freedom by Freedom House while China rates 9/100.

Using a western metric for democracies for a one party nation state is not particularly useful!
Wouldn't a better metric be to ask the people of respective nations what they thought? This is what we typically find:

"Trust among Chinese citizens in their government is a record 91 percent, the highest seen in a decade. The result is even more striking compared to the U.S., where trust in government is at 39 percent."​

So, should Mainland China invade Taiwan, subjugate them and dismantle their democracy and freedoms? What is your position?

The same as Australia's One- China Policy.

Also, do you think the Chinese societal model is a better model than that of Taiwan?

I frankly do not know how it is different to the Mainland's. I only know that in recent decades the traditional Chinese concept of collectivism is being reshaped more towards individualism in Taiwan than in China.

 

[greggles]

It's an interesting democracy for sure:

I don't think China wants a parliament like that.

I am the same on China, but unlike Australia it has no contradictory position. As I said, Australia considers Taiwan part of China so proposing to provide it with military support is no different to the Tasmanian analogy I presented earlier. It makes no sense and further antagonises our relationship with them.

If Tasmania developed a superior system, one that better protected individual liberties for example, I would argue that they deserved to secede and I would not oppose it. I would not take a "one Australia" view. At the very least I would demand that the Australian government adopt the improved system before I would oppose any secession.

China has shown that they will trample on individual liberty and press freedom at every opportunity. What occurred in Hong Kong gives us a good insight into how the CCP operates. In short, repression, repression, and then more repression. Taiwan has every reason not to want the same, and as a supporter of democracy and expanding human rights and freedom I support their desire to form their own nation based on their values, not those of the CCP.

Using a western metric for democracies for a one party nation state is not particularly useful!
Wouldn't a better metric be to ask the people of respective nations what they thought? This is what we typically find:

"Trust among Chinese citizens in their government is a record 91 percent, the highest seen in a decade. The result is even more striking compared to the U.S., where trust in government is at 39 percent."​

When you shut your citizens out from any information that is not approved by the state, of course you will have a higher level of trust. Having only one party to choose from also helps.

We are currently seeing how rotten to the core the Russian system is. There are no checks and balances in place to stop the government (i.e. Putin) passing any laws that he likes. Any dissent is met with beatings and arrests. With Twitter and Facebook having been banned and independent news outlets shut down, all that is left is government friendly "news" outlets that publish exactly what the Kremlin wants them to.

China is no better with its Great Firewall that controls all outside information flow into China. Last year, China was ranked 177 out of 180 countries for press freedom. Not exactly something to brag about. Totalitarianism is nothing for any nation to aspire to.

When the only information you are permitted to consume is state authorised information, it is only natural that trust will be high. Nothing that contradicts that information is permitted. I do not see this as a positive in any way, shape or form.

The same as Australia's One- China Policy.

I frankly do not know how it is different to the Mainland's. I only know that in recent decades the traditional Chinese concept of collectivism is being reshaped more towards individualism in Taiwan than in China.

Collectivism is a failed ideology. It has spawned the greatest horrors of the modern world. I wish to see less of it, not more. is it any surprise that those who wish to see more collectivism are usually those in whose hands the power ultimately collects?

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton.

 

[rederob]

China has shown that they will trample on individual liberty and press freedom at every opportunity. What occurred in Hong Kong gives us a good insight into how the CCP operates. In short, repression, repression, and then more repression. Taiwan has every reason not to want the same, and as a supporter of democracy and expanding human right and freedom I support their desire to form their own country based on their values, not those of the CCP.

You should be supporting what the people of the country want. You seem to overlook that.

When you shut your citizens out from any information that is not approved by the state, of course you will have a higher level of trust. Having only one party to choose from also helps.

On the contrary. All the Chinese (and I concede it was a very small portion of the 1.4B) I interacted with in recent years had VPNs and were better aware of world events than most Australians I know. The reasons their trust in their government is so high is because their living standards have increased incrementally for 4 decades and their purchasing power parity exceeds that of most westerners.

China is no better with its Great Firewall that controls all outside information flow into China. Last year, China was ranked 177 out of 180 countries for press freedom. Not exactly something to brag about. Totalitarianism is nothing for any nation to aspire to.

Maybe so. All China does is put a spin on what they want aired, but unlike Australia and America they don't have rampant liars churning out fake news to divide their nation. In other words China's "saving face" paradigm has spread into the information realm where the bad news does not get reported.
And FYI China has a daily press briefing where any accredited journalist can ask any question. We don't have that here and whenever it does occur and the question is too hard, that's it, the interview ends.

Collectivism is a failed ideology. It has spawned the greatest horrors of the modern world. I wish to see less of it, not more. is it any surprise that those who wish to see more collectivism are usually those in whose hands the power ultimately collects?

Nope. You have confused social collectivism with (political) collectivism.

 

[greggles]

You should be supporting what the people of the country want. You seem to overlook that.

What about what the people of Taiwan want? You seem to overlook that.

On the contrary. All the Chinese (and I concede it was a very small portion of the 1.4B) I interacted with in recent years had VPNs and were better aware of world events than most Australians I know. The reasons their trust in their government is so high is because their living standards have increased incrementally for 4 decades and their purchasing power parity exceeds that of most westerners.

I cannot speak to the truth or otherwise of your personal anecdote, other than to note that you were associating with Chinese criminals who were knowingly violating Chinese law. Perhaps a tiny subsection of Chinese criminals isn't an accurate representation of the Chinese population as a whole?

Maybe so. All China does is put a spin on what they want aired, but unlike Australia and America they don't have rampant liars churning out fake news to divide their nation. In other words China's "saving face" paradigm has spread into the information realm where the bad news does not get reported.

Having complete control over the information consumed by your citizens isn't "putting a spin on what [the CCP] want aired". It's censorship of a most extreme kind.

And FYI China has a dailypress briefing where any accredited journalist can ask any question. We don't have that here and whenever it does occur and the question is too hard, that's it, the interview ends.

This is not a replacement for a free and open and independent media.

Nope. You have confused social collectivism with (political) collectivism.

Then I will have to do some further reading on the topic. In the meantime, perhaps you could respond to Human Rights Watch's 2021 report on China's Human Rights abuses.

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/country-chapters/china-and-tibet