Canada must stand up to China.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://cbc.ca/news/opinion/canada-china-1.5241891

A few months ago, Hong Kong first erupted in major protest as millions of citizens poured out into the streets to demonstrate against a bill that would allow the Chinese state to extradite fugitives to the mainland. The former British colony has traditionally maintained an independent status under the "one country two systems" framework. However, protesters rightly fear that the Chinese state will use the bill to arrest dissidents, and stamp out Hong Kong's autonomous status in the process.

Three days after the major protests began, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland released a statement in which she expressed concern regarding the effects the proposed bill would have on Canadian citizens in Hong Kong. The statement went on to politely "urge" the government to find a solution via "thorough consultation and consideration."

The Chinese embassy in Canada quickly issued an aggressive response, declaring that, "Hong Kong affairs are purely China's internal affairs," going on to chide Canada for making "irresponsible" and "erroneous comments" concerning the new law.

This diplomatic spat marked a rise in tensions that had been simmering since Meng Wanzhou, chief financial officer of Chinese telecommunications company Huawei, was arrested in Vancouver on an American extradition warrant last December. China responded by detaining two Canadians on bogus charges. Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig now face indefinite jail time for what China vaguely refers to as crimes related to national security.

China retaliated after Meng Wanzhou's arrest by detaining two Canadians on bogus charges. (Ben Nelms/CBC)
Canada has raised concerns repeatedly, releasing similar statements on China's treatment of its Uighur Muslim minority and the imposition of an Orwellian social credit system that tracks and ranks citizens based on "good behaviour." However, these statements are strikingly tepid, especially considering the extent to which China has been meddling in internal Canadian affairs.

A recent report from the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, for example, found that China has been using its large international diaspora, including students, to influence politicians to adopt pro-China positions.

In February, Chemi Lhamo, a Canadian citizen of Tibetan descent, was elected student union president at the University of Toronto's Scarborough campus. Following her election, she received thousands of hateful messages accusing her of being "disloyal" to China. Lhamo has stated that though she is an advocate for Tibetan independence, her campaign did not address the issue and will not factor into her role as president.

Hong Kong protesters crowd airport as city recalls police commander from retirement

Freeland says Canada's relationship with China 'challenging' despite breakthrough meeting

In Vancouver, newspaper advertisements recently appeared accusing the Hong Kong protesters of being radicals and disloyal to China. Some of the organizations responsible for these advertisements are suspected of having links to "United Front," an arm of the government Chinese President Xi Jinping once described as a "magic weapon." Tasked with influencing the diaspora to lobby policy makers in foreign governments, the United Front has expanded significantly since Xi assumed office, presenting a critical challenge to Canadian interests.

To date, Canada's response to Chinese actions has been lacklustre at best, and cowardly at worst. Canada needs to take a stand in defence of the democratic principles it claims to represent. Not only does China persecute its own people, but it is blatantly trying to influence Canadian internal politics. Canada must be a leader and work with its international partners in pressing China on its human rights record and international muscle-flexing.

As such, Canada must join Australia in imposing a ban on Huawei 5G development. The security risk it poses — which includes concerns that it could facilitate spying by the Chinese state and data collection on Canadian citizens — is just too great. Such a move could encourage key allies such as the European Union and the United States to impose their own bans, delivering a significant blow to future Chinese espionage activities.

Canada, along with its international partners, should also explore the possibility of imposing targeted economic sanctions on Communist Party officials involved in human rights abuses. There are currently at least one million Uighurs being held in concentration camps, and Canada and the international community have a moral imperative to act. Such a process would be long, arduous, and complicated, but doing nothing isn't an option if we truly want to stand up for human rights.

Which is why Prime Minister Justin Trudeau needs to come out and condemn — not in tepid press releases, but in real, strong terms — China's recent repressive actions, not only for the sake of protesters in Hong Kong, but also for the 300,000 Canadian citizens living and working there.

Some may claim that standing up to China puts Canada's economy and security at risk, and could further jeopardize the welfare of Spavor and Kovrig. Indeed, these are serious concerns; China represents Canada's second largest trading partner, and the impact of halting pork and canola imports has already been enormous. However, the cost of weakness in the face of Chinese aggression could result in decades-long, even generations-long disorder.

Continued Canadian acquiescence will simply embolden the Chinese state. There are no easy solutions here, but there is a moral one. Canada and its international partners must stand for democratic values, or risk facing a Chinese-led global order governed by repression, lawlessness and cruelty.

This column is part of CBC's Opinion section. For more information about this section, please read our FAQ.

Although I have some reservations about this article stance, and I worry that drawing attention to the Chinese government's use of its citizens abroad will fuel bigotry against innocent Chinese people residing in Canada, I think that overall this article has it right. No doubt there will be the usual Whataboutism and accusations of racism and western imperialism in response to any demand to stand up to China, but here's the thing: If the problem is Western hypocrisy, then the answer to that should not be to turn a blind eye to China's crimes as well as our own. The answer should be to condemn all crimes and atrocities, wherever they occur. Because one person's guilt does not excuse another's, and at the end of the day, we are talking about a country that is putting millions of its people in concentration camps. And which is aggressively pursuing its authoritarian agenda in other countries, including Canada.

[aerius]

Personally, I'd formally recognize the Republic of China as the legitimate Chinese government and sanction the shit out of the PRC. I've written enough about the child slavery, human rights abuses, and all the other shit that goes on in the PRC, why we choose to give them favoured nation status among other things is beyond me.

[The Romulan Republic]

Personally, I'd formally recognize the Republic of China as the legitimate Chinese government and sanction the shit out of the PRC. I've written enough about the child slavery, human rights abuses, and all the other shit that goes on in the PRC, why we choose to give them favoured nation status among other things is beyond me.

Jesus Fuck, are we actually in agreement on a foreign policy issue?

I'll add one caveat to supporting sanctions- I do not support broad sanctions against a nation's economy, as they tend to hurt the ordinary civilians far more than the ruling class or military (who will tend to get the lion's share of resources during any shortage resulting from sanctions). I do support sanctions targeting specific individuals, such as travel bans or seizure of assets for high-ranking party officials, as well as sanctions on any trade of weaponry.

Cracking down on Huawei as a front for Chinese espionage, as noted in the article, also seems appropriate.

There is the risk of Chinese retaliation, but as long as we don't do anything that'll piss them off enough to risk WWIII over it, its probably better to take a strong stand. Fear of reprisal should never be allowed to dictate policy, for the obvious reason that it will only encourage more threats and aggression if people know that's an effective tactic.

[Gandalf]

Personally, I'd formally recognize the Republic of China as the legitimate Chinese government and sanction the shit out of the PRC. I've written enough about the child slavery, human rights abuses, and all the other shit that goes on in the PRC, why we choose to give them favoured nation status among other things is beyond me.

Presumably the first few countries to do so would see businesses which operate in the PRC offshore themselves quicksmart to countries which don't care as much. Prisoners dilemma writ large.

With elections and 24 hour news cycles, nobody wants to take that in the teeth.

[His Divine Shadow]

Personally, I'd formally recognize the Republic of China as the legitimate Chinese government and sanction the shit out of the PRC. I've written enough about the child slavery, human rights abuses, and all the other shit that goes on in the PRC, why we choose to give them favoured nation status among other things is beyond me.

Because money?

[ray245]

Although I have some reservations about this article stance, and I worry that drawing attention to the Chinese government's use of its citizens abroad will fuel bigotry against innocent Chinese people residing in Canada, I think that overall this article has it right. No doubt there will be the usual Whataboutism and accusations of racism and western imperialism in response to any demand to stand up to China, but here's the thing: If the problem is Western hypocrisy, then the answer to that should not be to turn a blind eye to China's crimes as well as our own. The answer should be to condemn all crimes and atrocities, wherever they occur. Because one person's guilt does not excuse another's, and at the end of the day, we are talking about a country that is putting millions of its people in concentration camps. And which is aggressively pursuing its authoritarian agenda in other countries, including Canada.

Hahahaha...that's incredibly naive and the kind of westerner rhetoric that will only place nicely into China's hands. The west as a rule as horrible at actually promoting or defending democracy outside of the West as a whole, and most liberal's attempts that pushing for greater democratic values and human rights in the non-western world only hampers any actual democratic progress.

Instead of jumping to conclusion and opting for a simple solution, how about make an actual effort to understand the actual problem in Hong Kong and study the possible ramifications of your actions.

The reason there is a one country two system in the first place was because of British colonialism, which carved out a territory in China because of the opium war and created a distinct Chinese culture that is more "westernised" than the rest of mainland China. Now what is going on is some protestors are so upset with the existing system that a number of them are now nostalgic for British colonial rule.



Some of the protesters are waving the Union Jack in the Hong Kong legislative chambers and a number of people do want Hong Kong to revert back under British colonial rule.

So a number of protesters are already being viewed as puppets of the west, and China is more than happy to play up this fact to delegitimise the movement and to create the image of the protesters as people who wants to bring back colonialism and carve up China once again. So the more "westerners" try and "stand up" to China, the more difficult it will be for the protesters in achieving their goal.

Politics is not about simple solutions and feel good gestures. I think your "feel good" gestures can backfire and make things worse for the people who do want to keep the one-country-two-system alive for the remaining duration.

The diplomats in the West are doing nothing because they know doing "something" might make things worse. The protesters need to be sustain their movement as a credible grassroots movement based on local issues, rather than be seen as agents of the west trying to reimpose neo-imperialism on China once again.

Don't let your "westerner" privilege screw things up for the Hong Kongers.

[The Romulan Republic]

First, the article addressed in the OP is broader than just the Hong Kong protests, though those are certainly a significant issue. You may be right that intervention on Hong Kong specifically would make things worse for the protesters. That is certainly something to carefully consider, although I wonder if you will still advocate our silence when and if China starts running those protesters over with tanks. However, does that also mean that we must keep silent on China's espionage, or on its retaliatory arrests of Canadians, or on its near Holocaust-size concentration camps?

Secondly, China will call the protesters western agents regardless of what we do, and there are plenty of people, both in China and Hong Kong and among the faux progressive crowd in the West, who will gladly lap that up. Trying to alter our actions to avoid such a label strikes me as much like US liberals constantly moving to the Right to avoid Republicans labeling them "socialist"- an ultimately futile compromise that will just make us look weak and hypocritical, without actually changing what our adversary says about us.

Thirdly, neither my nor the article's argument is about "feel good gestures". Its about the concern that constantly backing down only encourages an autocratic government to push further, and, for me at least, the belief that if you are going to talk the talk on standing up for freedom, democracy, rule of law and human rights, then you also need to try to walk the walk. I believe that the primary reason that the West is hated in many places is not because we advocate for human rights, but that we so often do so and then throw them under the bus when it becomes politically inconvenient to fight for them.

Finally, please be careful about labeling my arguments Western privilege as an attempt to dismiss them. While I recognize that privilege can alter one's perspective, I also think that label is frequently used as a form of ad hominem- essentially saying "You are X, therefore you are privileged and your view is automatically invalid."

I do not argue for standing up to China because I believe that the West has some privileged role in bringing democracy to the backwards parts of the world. I do it because standing up for human rights and justice is the right thing to do, regardless of where you are from. Its the duty of Canada. Its the duty of the Hong Kong protesters. And its the duty of the Chinese government, albeit one they habitually ignore.

I'll also add that the fact some of the Hong Kong protesters are flying Union Jacks and talking about going back to Britain means that it isn't so simple as "West Evil Imperialists vs the rest of the world". And no, before some idiot decides to put more words in my mouth, I am not arguing in favor of the restoration of the British Empire. Just pointing out that not every non-Westerner shares the view that the West are evil imperialists who should adopt an isolationist stand and leave the rest of the world to itself. In fact, the two places I most often see that view point coming from* are not the public of non-Western nations, but from non-Western dictators who have a vested interest in using the West as an enemy to control their populace (Putin is the most blatant example, but they pretty much all do it), and from the "anti-establishment" activist crowd in the West, who exercise their own form of privilege in deciding unilaterally that non-interventionism is what's best for the rest of the world, regardless of what the rest of the world actually wants.

*Admittedly, my perspective here is probably somewhat biased, as these are the groups are among those I follow most closely on the subject of foreign policy.

[Gandalf]

Hahahaha...that's incredibly naive and the kind of westerner rhetoric that will only place nicely into China's hands.

Given their penchant for revisionism, doesn't everything play into the PRC's hands? Or should everyone just pepper their rhetoric with references to Tiananmen to the government can't use it?

[The Romulan Republic]

Hahahaha...that's incredibly naive and the kind of westerner rhetoric that will only place nicely into China's hands.

Given their penchant for revisionism, doesn't everything play into the PRC's hands? Or should everyone just pepper their rhetoric with references to Tiananmen to the government can't use it?

Yeah, there's no point tailoring your rhetoric to avoid being accused of (X) when you're dealing with an opponent who will just lie anyway. The best you can do is be consistent in their own stances, and trust to those who look deeper than the propaganda to see through the bullshit.

That's the problem- the Western governments, corporations, and media have by and large been inconsistent in their stances. They have preached freedom and human rights, but not practiced them or stood for them when it was politically inconvenient. We need to be more consistent, which means either we have to abandon the concepts of democracy and human rights altogether and embrace a world in which the ends justify the means and the only purpose is pursuit of power for our side (what the likes of Putin want), or we need to stand for democracy and human rights even when its not convenient- like when it might antagonize the PRC (or Donald Trump- Trudeau has been way too soft on challenging Trump, in my opinion, likely because the US is the only country that's more important to us economically than China).

[aerius]

The world would be a much better place if we put half as much effort into sanctioning and pushing back against the PRC for their abusive policies as we do against Russia.

But we can't do that

Because money?

And

Presumably the first few countries to do so would see businesses which operate in the PRC offshore themselves quicksmart to countries which don't care as much. Prisoners dilemma writ large.

With elections and 24 hour news cycles, nobody wants to take that in the teeth.

[The Romulan Republic]

Why not sanction both?

Of course, if we wanted to be consistent and sanction every regime that committed gross human rights abuses, well... I'm reminded of this line from Fellowship of the Ring:

Our list of allies grows thin.

But at some point, you've got to stand for something. Besides money and power, I mean. Even if it costs you.

[Gandalf]

Why not sanction both?

Because sanctions don't work without significant participation. For example, thr DPRK is under sanctions, except Russia and the PRC aren't too fussed. So DPRK sells them coal and cheap labour.

Given the PRC's growing influence in Central/West Asia, as well as Africa, any sanction efforts would require a lot more effort than the DPRK.

[AniThyng]

As I recall, sanctions are generally a poor way of actually forcing a country to your will - far more likely sanctions will harden domestic support for further Chinese nationalism and a determination to not give in to foreign bullying even in the face of short term suffering, in an inverse to the same principle that the West should give up comforts for moral principles, likewise will China leverage being the target of sanctions to push it's own moral principals.

[mr friendly guy]

For the purpose of this spiel, when I use the West I will mainly refer to the US, UK and Canada since the OP wants Canada's foreign policy to align more with a hawkish one which the US uses.

First, the article addressed in the OP is broader than just the Hong Kong protests, though those are certainly a significant issue. You may be right that intervention on Hong Kong specifically would make things worse for the protesters. That is certainly something to carefully consider, although I wonder if you will still advocate our silence when and if China starts running those protesters over with tanks. However, does that also mean that we must keep silent on China's espionage, or on its retaliatory arrests of Canadians, or on its near Holocaust-size concentration camps?

Running over with tanks TRR? Even Tankman wasn't run over. Hyperbole much isn't it.
There is so many things to address. So lets try a few things.
Protesters who throw petrol bombs and detain journalists do kind of need to be broken up, just not with tanks. Granted the Global times is a Chinese tabloid, but even Daily Fail journalists shouldn't be detained like that.

1. Remember when the NYT interviewed CIA staff bemoaning about how China since the 2010s broke down the CIA spy ring in their country?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/worl ... onage.html
Sure you do.

So we need to be concern about China potentially spying via Huawei in the future with what little evidence we have, but we get the sound of crickets on Western spying on China in the here and now.

Here is the thing. In an ideal world, no one spies on each other. However we live in the real world, and everyone wants and tries to keep tabs on everyone else. I have no problems with Canada not wanting to be spied upon by China or anyone else, although the evidence against Huawei seems to be speculation. But fine, you assess your own risk. However what irks me, is the gross hypocrisy where silence on Western spying on other nations. Either accept that no one should spy on each other, or that everyone else does it, so lets not pretend our shit doesn't stink.

At least the OP should have the good grace to mention, hey look, we spy on them right now.

2. RETALIATORY arrests huh? Well the retaliatory kind of says it all doesn't it. If Canada didn't arrest a Chinese citizen on politically motivated charge which YOU YOURSELF acknowledge its immoral for Meng to face trial in the US, then according to your logic, the Canadians wouldn't have been arrested in the first place because its retaliatory.

So even if Canada does something to China which you admit is wrong, China can't do something back? Since you brought up Western privilege...

3. You're a little late to the allegation of concentration camps. This was debated quite a bit already on Spacebattles where people looked at how they got the million number.

Painrack who also posts here and some others looked into it deeper.
https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads ... 042/page-3

https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads ... 042/page-4

While re education camps are bad, making numbers extrapolated from interviewing 8 villages to the whole province even in areas where Uyghurs don't live is kind of misleading and propaganda. I can see the way to counter the propaganda of our rivals is to lie harder.

Secondly, China will call the protesters western agents regardless of what we do, and there are plenty of people, both in China and Hong Kong and among the faux progressive crowd in the West, who will gladly lap that up. Trying to alter our actions to avoid such a label strikes me as much like US liberals constantly moving to the Right to avoid Republicans labeling them "socialist"- an ultimately futile compromise that will just make us look weak and hypocritical, without actually changing what our adversary says about us.

That's dodging the point as to whether they are Western agents. Let me put it this way. Some Trump supporters cheer on Russia, wave Russian flags and meet with Russian diplomats. Now imagine if Russia was asked about this, and said, yeah our ambassadors met these Trump supporters but its "normal." How does this look?

If you're going to say, Russian puppets, then by the same logic, why can't China also suspect Western puppets when these guys, wave foreign flags, meet US ambassadors with the US saying "its normal" for our diplomats to do this.

Given the West, particularly US (and UK) and CIA history of overthrowing lots of governments, democratic or otherwise, then any country that isn't suspicious of the possibility of western puppets is being run by idiots.

Thirdly, neither my nor the article's argument is about "feel good gestures". Its about the concern that constantly backing down only encourages an autocratic government to push further, and, for me at least, the belief that if you are going to talk the talk on standing up for freedom, democracy, rule of law and human rights, then you also need to try to walk the walk. I believe that the primary reason that the West is hated in many places is not because we advocate for human rights, but that we so often do so and then throw them under the bus when it becomes politically inconvenient to fight for them.

I think this is the other way round. If countries back down to the Western nations, particularly the US it just encourages them to go further. Which country is engaged in military operations in like what.. 6 or 7 other countries right now? Which country is trying to start a war with Iran and Venezuala? Which country already has a history of toppling governments in South America that it didn't like, sometimes over benign things like fucking fruit. I think its the US. On another note, which country helped the US overthrow Haiti's government in 2004. Hint, its the one with a maple leaf on its flag.

I know you're ignorant about the history of Western interventions, but I am going to say that leaders running countries which are US geopolitical rivals aren't. So if the West takes a harder line like the OP wants, then what Chinese leaders would conclude, is that backing down now will just encourage the West to push harder.

Your viewpoint is a very ethnocentric point of view. Its only from the West worried about what other countries might do to them, and ignoring the fact that other countries are worried about what the West might do to them.

You know what's really funny. When Western journalists interviewed a North Korean soldier, the soldier understood this concept. Yep, a brainwashed NK soldier understood that the US is concerned about NK, while NK is also worried about the US, and hence the problem. Because if either side gives in, there is a fear that the opposing side will just push harder.

I do not argue for standing up to China because I believe that the West has some privileged role in bringing democracy to the backwards parts of the world. I do it because standing up for human rights and justice is the right thing to do, regardless of where you are from. Its the duty of Canada. Its the duty of the Hong Kong protesters. And its the duty of the Chinese government, albeit one they habitually ignore.

I know you will do this, but I just want to hear you say it. Will you condemn the detaining of a Chinese journalist, even if they were working for the equivalent of a tabloid. Will you condemn the blatant bigotry some HK nativists show, where they described mainlanders as "locusts." Will you also point out the stupidity of talking about democracy while waving colonial flags, since colonial HK wasn't a democracy.

Just pointing out that not every non-Westerner shares the view that the West are evil imperialists who should adopt an isolationist stand and leave the rest of the world to itself. In fact, the two places I most often see that view point coming from* are not the public of non-Western nations, but from non-Western dictators who have a vested interest in using the West as an enemy to control their populace (Putin is the most blatant example, but they pretty much all do it), and from the "anti-establishment" activist crowd in the West, who exercise their own form of privilege in deciding unilaterally that non-interventionism is what's best for the rest of the world, regardless of what the rest of the world actually wants.

Ok, so lets ask the people of China whether they want western interference. I am going to say no. Wait, you're going to say, lets just ask Hong Kong. Well ok, we don't have recent poll figures, but Reuters as recent as 2016 reported only a mere 1 in 6 wants independence. And before you say, why aren't I seeing these pro Beijing people reported on Western media which never ever lie. Ask your own media that question buddy. Or perhaps ask why pro Beijing parties win every election when HK voters could have voted anti Beijing parties to send a message to China.

[K. A. Pital]

From a US-led global order governed by repression, lawlessness and cruelty, to a China-led global order governed by repression, lawlessness and cruelty.

The only difference in the above statements (consider both true; I don’t have a lot of time for detailed discussions right now) is just the fear of Chinese for their otherness.

[The Romulan Republic]

From a US-led global order governed by repression, lawlessness and cruelty, to a China-led global order governed by repression, lawlessness and cruelty.

"BOTH SIDES! BOTH SIDES!"

Forever the cry of those who want to justify apathy towards tyranny, while masking themselves in a cloak of "fairness".

How about, rather than responding to any criticism of tyranny by a non-Western faction by saying "the US is just as bad" (and, implicitly, that there is no point to opposing the non-Western tyrant), and branding the critics of non-Western tyrants as racists, you stand in opposition to all tyranny, no matter who the perpetrator is.

The only difference in the above statements (consider both true; I don’t have a lot of time for detailed discussions right now) is just the fear of Chinese for their otherness.

Simple question: Are you suggesting that my or others' opposition to the Chinese dictatorship in this thread is motivated by nothing but anti-Chinese racism? Because if that is the ad hominem you're using, at least have the guts to say it outright.

Also, I can't speak for anyone else, but I would be absolutely supportive of Canada sanctioning the Trump Regime as well, for its crimes against humanity. This isn't (at least for me) "the West/America vs. the non-West", no matter how much you or others try to make that the debate. Its about equality and law vs. bigotry and despotism, and I am proud to stand on the side of the former, no matter what flag the fascists march under.

[Gandalf]

Running over with tanks TRR? Even Tankman wasn't run over. Hyperbole much isn't it.

Tankman wasn't run over, sure. Was anyone else on that day? The government seems weirdly secretive about it.

[mr friendly guy]

Also, I can't speak for anyone else, but I would be absolutely supportive of Canada sanctioning the Trump Regime as well, for its crimes against humanity. This isn't (at least for me) "the West/America vs. the non-West", no matter how much you or others try to make that the debate. Its about equality and law vs. bigotry and despotism, and I am proud to stand on the side of the former, no matter what flag the fascists march under.

Will you ask the whole world to sanction Canada or boycott Canadian goods over its "genocide of indigenous people," as per your own prime minister's words. I know the whole world wouldn't do that, but would you ask them to?

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, I can't speak for anyone else, but I would be absolutely supportive of Canada sanctioning the Trump Regime as well, for its crimes against humanity. This isn't (at least for me) "the West/America vs. the non-West", no matter how much you or others try to make that the debate. Its about equality and law vs. bigotry and despotism, and I am proud to stand on the side of the former, no matter what flag the fascists march under.

Will you ask the whole world to sanction Canada or boycott Canadian goods over its "genocide of indigenous people," as per your own prime minister's words. I know the whole world wouldn't do that, but would you ask them to?

If the Canadian government refuses to take substantive actions to end and atone for those crimes, then yes, absolutely.

I should note, however, that I am wary of supporting general boycotts of a country's goods, just as I am skeptical of broad economic sanctions of any kind (and no, this isn't a sudden change in my position when its applied to Canada, I noted it early in the thread), because such practices tend to harm the ordinary people (disproportionately poor minorities) more than those in power. I do, however, support targeted sanctions against government and corporate officials who are culpable in atrocities or despotic/imperialist actions, such as travel bans or freezing/seizing assets. And I'd support such sanctions being applied to Canadian officials who engaged in atrocities or despotic actions.

Of course, I know that your purpose is simply to bog down the discussion in endless Whataboutism, to constantly deflect any criticism of China with "But what about (insert Western crime/country here)?" to frame any critic of the Chinese dictatorship as a racist hypocrite, because apparently you're okay with herding millions of minorities into concentration camps if its done under a Chinese flag. Every time I answer such a question, I expect that you'll just come up with another. I answered this one in order to clarify my position, but I will not entertain endless such distractions from the topic at hand.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, by the way, your prior claim that my position is "ethnocentric" because "Its only from the West worried about other countries might do to them" is a flat-out lie that ignores the other reasons for my position that I gave in my posts (including concern for what China is doing to its own people and those of Hong Kong, and my concern for how the rest of the world will perceive the West if we don't stand by our stated values).

But I'm well aware that you and others on this board are engaged in a persistent effort to discredit my posts by constantly painting me as racist. Its despicable, but knowing this board, it will probably work, and the accepted view here will become that I am a white supremacist who wants to put the entire world under Western rule at gunpoint, because I actually have the audacity to believe that murder, torture, and concentration camps are wrong regardless of whether the perpetrators fly and American flag or a Chinese or Russian one.

The worst part is, you probably honestly believe it, because your ideology requires that anyone who criticizes China's government be motivated by prejudice and Western imperialism. The notion that one could sincerely oppose tyranny in all nations simply does not compute for you, does it?

[mr friendly guy]

Of course, I know that your purpose is simply to bog down the discussion in endless Whataboutism, to constantly deflect any criticism of China with "But what about (insert Western crime/country here)?" to frame any critic of the Chinese dictatorship as a racist hypocrite, because apparently you're okay with herding millions of minorities into concentration camps if its done under a Chinese flag. Every time I answer such a question, I expect that you'll just come up with another. I answered this one in order to clarify my position, but I will not entertain endless such distractions from the topic at hand.

Firstly I said re education camps are bad, but the million number is exaggerated. I gave the reasoning above so I won't repeat it. So when can I get you to withdraw that statement about how ok I am with it. Like 10 years time maybe. You also missed it when this was discussed earlier, like last year when we covered concepts of deradicalisation and why there is terrorism in that region of China and why it stopped (for now) only after the Chinese took a hard line. I would rather not go through that again because everything that could be said, most probably has been said.

Secondly I never claimed you were racist. But since you ask, I think your western centric views don't help, but you're not racist. Can I get a withdrawal of that racist claim too while you're at it?

Thirdly if you said, just yourself and like minded people as individuals wanted to stand up to China, assuming you haven't done anything hypocritical in that regards, go knock yourself out. This is even though I think its more efficient to focus on a country you actually live in, but whatever. However the OP is more than that. Its asking the government to change their foreign policy stance. Which is also what you said the West ideally should do. That's a little bit different, because wait for it....the Canadian government doesn't exactly have clean hands. Which leads to the last point.

A lot of the time interventions make things worse. Using democracy or human rights is just a cover for some other reason.

Now you could say I trust an altruistic actor to act morally, but would you trust an actor who just pretends to be doing it for altruistic reasons but you suspect is most probably doing it for some other reasons. I wouldn't, because there is a good chance, this other reason is going to conflict with your more moral reason. Given the checkered record of Western nations post WWII in their interventions, which admitted succeeded in their geopolitical goals more often than not, albeit at the cost of vast human suffering, I think I would take a pass on trusting more Western responses. This is of course assuming, China just takes it up the arse, it will just be China being screwed. Realistically, it will try to prevent this and then more people would be fucked over. Just take Aerius's suggestion of sanctioning the shit out of the PRC, as an illustration of this attitude I am talking about.

Oh, by the way, your prior claim that my position is "ethnocentric" because "Its only from the West worried about other countries might do to them" is a flat-out lie that ignores the other reasons for my position that I gave in my posts (including concern for what China is doing to its own people and those of Hong Kong, and my concern for how the rest of the world will perceive the West if we don't stand by our stated values).

So you still can't see why other countries might be concern about the West might do to them, I mean do to them in the name of freedom, democracy and human rights, despite the examples of human suffering from Western interventions. Okaaaay. So I stand by my statement then.

But I'm well aware that you and others on this board are engaged in a persistent effort to discredit my posts by constantly painting me as racist. Its despicable, but knowing this board, it will probably work, and the accepted view here will become that I am a white supremacist who wants to put the entire world under Western rule at gunpoint, because I actually have the audacity to believe that murder, torture, and concentration camps are wrong regardless of whether the perpetrators fly and American flag or a Chinese or Russian one.

That's a serious allegation. Who else accuses you of being racist? Please name these people.

The worst part is, you probably honestly believe it, because your ideology requires that anyone who criticizes China's government be motivated by prejudice and Western imperialism. The notion that one could sincerely oppose tyranny in all nations simply does not compute for you, does it?

Given that I have criticise China for things like, sending NK refugees back, their classification of homosexuality as a mental illness (which they don't do anymore) etc, I think you're full of shit mate. But the fact that the world isn't just black and white doesn't compute to you does it?

[K. A. Pital]

From a US-led global order governed by repression, lawlessness and cruelty, to a China-led global order governed by repression, lawlessness and cruelty.

"BOTH SIDES! BOTH SIDES!" Forever the cry of those who want to justify apathy towards tyranny, while masking themselves in a cloak of "fairness".

You interpret wrongly. It is a tradition that goes back to XIX century social-democracy, before it was coopted by militaristic rulers: first and foremost wish the defeat of your own government. First and foremost be concerned with the actions of your own government, with internal change.

For the world as a whole it is absolutely irrelevant which imperialist power is the king of the hill: France, Britain, US, China or eventually India. What matters is the internal political processes in both the subjugated periphery and the opulent center. The processes of world-political development. Petty preferences here mean nothing.

I stood in opposition to the Russian government (which didn’t even bother to send the KGB back in the day, just hired thugs who would cripple or kill you and mask it as a routine street violence incident), and now have been like over a decade in emigration, so I take it you have a similar record of resisting real dictatorship, other than posting here? As you said you stand in opposition to dictatorship, I expect you to understand that I am not your enemy.

Simple question: Are you suggesting that my or others' opposition to the Chinese dictatorship in this thread is motivated by nothing but anti-Chinese racism? Because if that is the ad hominem you're using, at least have the guts to say it outright.

Also, I can't speak for anyone else, but I would be absolutely supportive of Canada sanctioning the Trump Regime as well, for its crimes against humanity. This isn't (at least for me) "the West/America vs. the non-West", no matter how much you or others try to make that the debate. Its about equality and law vs. bigotry and despotism, and I am proud to stand on the side of the former, no matter what flag the fascists march under.

I don’t think it is racism, more like primitive nationalism: the idea of sanctions, for example. Canada sanctioning the US would never happen (a satellite state cannot do such injury to its suzerain, not unless there is an imperialist power that would protect it in its outrage). So you support an unreal thing. Whilst sanctions against China under US pressure can actually happen, and given China‘s state of development, these sanctions may well cause displacement, hunger and poverty, as the US sanctions on Cuba or Iran actually do.

The actual reality is that the Chinese people are the only ones who can and should define and determine the future of China, its form of government and the like. It is not for Canada or anyone else to decide.

If the Chinese people wish to alter the government of their nation, it is their internal matter. If they do not, it is likewise their internal matter so as long as they do not invade other nations and seize their territory.

This is my position. It has no relation to supporting a government, but allows the collective expression of the people‘s will. Until that expression is a war-prone fascist aggression or outright genocide, the matter lies with the nations themselves.

[ray245]

First, the article addressed in the OP is broader than just the Hong Kong protests, though those are certainly a significant issue. You may be right that intervention on Hong Kong specifically would make things worse for the protesters. That is certainly something to carefully consider, although I wonder if you will still advocate our silence when and if China starts running those protesters over with tanks. However, does that also mean that we must keep silent on China's espionage, or on its retaliatory arrests of Canadians, or on its near Holocaust-size concentration camps?

If China starts running over the protesters with tanks, all hell has already broken loose. And there's still nothing the West can really do about it. They can sanction China, but it's not going to stop China from enacting what they see as an existential threat to the nation itself.

If a country feel they have more to lose than listening to Western demands, no amount of western demand or pressure will ever be enough to make them give in. Making assumption that anything you do can actually change or help the situation can simply be about your selfish desire to make yourself feel good rather than actually figuring out a solution that benefits the people there.

As for the concentration camps, if that's a big issue for you, would you want to "stand up" to the US under Trump as well?

Secondly, China will call the protesters western agents regardless of what we do, and there are plenty of people, both in China and Hong Kong and among the faux progressive crowd in the West, who will gladly lap that up. Trying to alter our actions to avoid such a label strikes me as much like US liberals constantly moving to the Right to avoid Republicans labeling them "socialist"- an ultimately futile compromise that will just make us look weak and hypocritical, without actually changing what our adversary says about us.

They can call them that, but the west should not give confirmation bias to the Chinese people at large. Right now, the protests is more about local issues in Hong Kong, with many of the protesters demands being a lot more than western liberal values against Chinese authoritarian values. One of the main reason why the HK are willing to protest en mass was also because of impoverishment of the locals in comparison to the well-off oligarchs and expats ( from China and the rest of the world).

The West can help by not framing it as a case of western liberal/democracy values against authoritarian China, but simply remind everyone that the issue in Hong Kong is about local issues. Police brutality is a local issue, the insane housing prices that forces most HKers to live in tiny bedrooms while well-off oligarchs and expats live in houses beyond the wildest dreams of most HKers is a big issue, ability to ensure the civil rights of HKers that was covered under the one country two system can remain in place for the remaining duration is a big concern for the HKers.

Thirdly, neither my nor the article's argument is about "feel good gestures". Its about the concern that constantly backing down only encourages an autocratic government to push further, and, for me at least, the belief that if you are going to talk the talk on standing up for freedom, democracy, rule of law and human rights, then you also need to try to walk the walk. I believe that the primary reason that the West is hated in many places is not because we advocate for human rights, but that we so often do so and then throw them under the bus when it becomes politically inconvenient to fight for them.

Trying to "stand up" to countries when it doesn't actually help the locals there IS "feel good gestures". The West has "stood up" against regimes like North Korea for decades, and it hasn't really done anything to help the people there by any means. The only real "standing up" the West can do is if they are actually willing to use military force. But given that the use of military force can easily spark off WW3, there's no real way you can really "stand up" against China.

Finally, please be careful about labeling my arguments Western privilege as an attempt to dismiss them. While I recognize that privilege can alter one's perspective, I also think that label is frequently used as a form of ad hominem- essentially saying "You are X, therefore you are privileged and your view is automatically invalid."

It is western privilege because you come from a worldview with very poor understanding of how the rest of the world works beyond the West. I am not saying your view is automatically invalid, but you come from an environment in which you assume the rest of the world function the way the west does.

Here's the big issue for many many progressive in the world outside the "west". Liberalism or progressivism is still seen as an inherently "western" concept. It does not help when the push for liberalism and progressivism has often been used by the west, most notably US as a form of neo-imperialism to impose a value system onto other countries. So anyone who is a progressive in East Asia for example, is seen as someone who has become too "westernised" or too "western-influenced". Progressives are undermined because we have difficulties advancing human rights and equality in a manner that can be seen as universal and being authentic to East Asian cultures.

You come from a background in which liberalism/progressivism is seen as a set of ideas and value that arose from western philosophical thoughts and ideas. For East Asia, the spread of liberalism, democracy and etc had been linked to a long memory of imperialism and imposition onto various East Asian states by colonial powers or by the US/Western world within the context of the Cold War.

I do not argue for standing up to China because I believe that the West has some privileged role in bringing democracy to the backwards parts of the world. I do it because standing up for human rights and justice is the right thing to do, regardless of where you are from. Its the duty of Canada. Its the duty of the Hong Kong protesters. And its the duty of the Chinese government, albeit one they habitually ignore.

Except the push for human rights has long been used as a political and diplomatic tool by the West, especially during the cold war as a way to get states to align with the Western world, namely the US. In the case of Hong Kong, it is an especially touchy issue because the creation of Hong Kong as a region is largely artificially created by the British during the 19th century. The Chinese remembered the ceding of Hong Kong to the British as the beginning of the 100 years of humiliation by external powers. So even if you aren't advocating for imperialism, you belong to a community that benefited massively from colonialism.

It's not about what "you feel is the right thing to do". Like it or not, we cannot pretend history isn't a thing and that human rights as a concept hasn't been tainted by those who deployed it as a political tool to bind non-western world to western interest.

I'll also add that the fact some of the Hong Kong protesters are flying Union Jacks and talking about going back to Britain means that it isn't so simple as "West Evil Imperialists vs the rest of the world". And no, before some idiot decides to put more words in my mouth, I am not arguing in favor of the restoration of the British Empire. Just pointing out that not every non-Westerner shares the view that the West are evil imperialists who should adopt an isolationist stand and leave the rest of the world to itself. In fact, the two places I most often see that view point coming from* are not the public of non-Western nations, but from non-Western dictators who have a vested interest in using the West as an enemy to control their populace (Putin is the most blatant example, but they pretty much all do it), and from the "anti-establishment" activist crowd in the West, who exercise their own form of privilege in deciding unilaterally that non-interventionism is what's best for the rest of the world, regardless of what the rest of the world actually wants.

Go and read up about the history of imperialism and China from the 19th to 20th century. Hell, watch the topic of Hong Kong cinema prior to being returned to China in 1997. Anti-western imperialism is a big, big theme in many of the historical dramas and movies produced in Hong Kong. There had long been a view that the Chinese-linked worlds had been unfairly treated by the West for ages. While the younger generation are more nostalgic about British colonial rule ( partly because they never really experienced the effects of being colonial subjects under British rule), the older generation aren't that fond of the British colonial rule.

The fact that some of the younger protesters are waving the British colonial flag is a combination of misleading nostalgia and anger at how the current Chinese-backed adminstration had fucked things up in Hong Kong. But the feeling of Westerners is once again plotting to undermine China an subject its population to poverty, humiliation and etc is most certainly there in China.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation

*Admittedly, my perspective here is probably somewhat biased, as these are the groups are among those I follow most closely on the subject of foreign policy.

Your perspective is the typical western liberals jumping to conclusions without reading much about the subject matter in depth and seeking "feel good measures" like I stand up for human rights and etc, without actually considering the ramifications of your actions.

Western actions and "help" has rarely helped progressive in the non-western world. You guys have a tendency to "do something" and ending up fucking things up like in Libya and in most of the Middle East.

[mr friendly guy]

The actual reality is that the Chinese people are the only ones who can and should define and determine the future of China, its form of government and the like. It is not for Canada or anyone else to decide.

If the Chinese people wish to alter the government of their nation, it is their internal matter. If they do not, it is likewise their internal matter so as long as they do not invade other nations and seize their territory.

This is my position. It has no relation to supporting a government, but allows the collective expression of the people‘s will. Until that expression is a war-prone fascist aggression or outright genocide, the matter lies with the nations themselves.

Just on a side note, from what Western polls report, most the Chinese like the way the country is going. For example figures done by Pew from 2007 to 2010 show 80% plus with satisfaction at how the country is going, even though its, you know, not a democracy. As recent as 2016, even Broadcasting Bullshit Corporation published figures from Pew showing high optimism about the country's future.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2011 ... evolution/
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-37570965

I know people here smear me as anti democratic (although I suspect their definition isn't rule of the people by the people, but rather to hold Western style elections), my view has always been if the Chinese people want to change their style government, then its up to them. If they have high satisfaction, why the hell should we be hostile because the people choose a different form of government? If the Chinese want to change to a western style democracy, that's up to them. I don't have a strong opinion either way if they choose one or the other, although I would suggest its best done gradually to maintain stability. Given trends about how countries democratise once they start hitting the high income level, its quite possible China would do the same when it breaks out the middle income range. Of course, even if it is a democracy, its geopolitical goals will not change. So you know all those things the west complains about in terms of economics and territorial integrity, yeah that's going to stay.

[ray245]

The actual reality is that the Chinese people are the only ones who can and should define and determine the future of China, its form of government and the like. It is not for Canada or anyone else to decide.

If the Chinese people wish to alter the government of their nation, it is their internal matter. If they do not, it is likewise their internal matter so as long as they do not invade other nations and seize their territory.

This is my position. It has no relation to supporting a government, but allows the collective expression of the people‘s will. Until that expression is a war-prone fascist aggression or outright genocide, the matter lies with the nations themselves.

Just on a side note, from what Western polls report, most the Chinese like the way the country is going. For example figures done by Pew from 2007 to 2010 show 80% plus with satisfaction at how the country is going, even though its, you know, not a democracy. As recent as 2016, even Broadcasting Bullshit Corporation published figures from Pew showing high optimism about the country's future.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2011 ... evolution/
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-37570965

I know people here smear me as anti democratic (although I suspect their definition isn't rule of the people by the people, but rather to hold Western style elections), my view has always been if the Chinese people want to change their style government, then its up to them. If they have high satisfaction, why the hell should we be hostile because the people choose a different form of government? If the Chinese want to change to a western style democracy, that's up to them. I don't have a strong opinion either way if they choose one or the other, although I would suggest its best done gradually to maintain stability. Given trends about how countries democratise once they start hitting the high income level, its quite possible China would do the same when it breaks out the middle income range. Of course, even if it is a democracy, its geopolitical goals will not change. So you know all those things the west complains about in terms of economics and territorial integrity, yeah that's going to stay.

Because people being happy with alternative forms of government means people in the west felt threatened by the idea that democracy and human rights aren't quite as universal as they think.