Of course context varies but doesn't matter in relation to the response being a counter insurgency and domestic security issue. Which XJ is. It's not about GDP, it's about safety and control over security. Atrocities in the interest of that is a false argument, but it's also an predictable response as 9/11 demonstrated. Such comparison is not whataboutism, claiming so is just lazy rhetoric. Bringing up Native American treatment in NA is apt, XJ strategy is ostensibly "residential school" cultural genocide aka absolutely "re-education" with the ultimate goal of forced integration. The difference is China will backup stick of reeducation with carrot of development. XJ will have better infrastructure and growth opportunities than reservations up in Canada that doesn't have road access and water boiling notices. Incidentally Canadian Tribunal on indigenous treatment labelled it has "cultural genocide", but at the end of the day, few cares. Ultimately XJ will fall on the same deaf years as much as US and a handful of allies tries to weaponize it as geopolitical tool. Regardless, refer to explosive Tibet GDP growth and development in the last few years for context. As far as actual cost, building the infrastructure to intern a million is trivial compared to Chinese building capacities. The scope of XJ seems huge but relative to 1.4 billion people, it's literally trivial undertaking. The greater security apparatus throughout China on the other hand to maintain power is much more demanding, internal security budget exceeds that of military.
As for other strategies, they tried but it didn't work. The reason why Tibet and XJ are "autonomous regions" is because they were based of soviet oblasts where these regions and minorites retained extraordinary affirmative action privileges. Much more in the west - exemptions from taxes, family planning, bonuses to education enrollment on national test etc. The idea was multiculturalism salad bowl, but the riots and terrorists attacks failed hence integration strategy - the rational was melting pot analogy literally inspired by US and the cities you highlighted. Also these cities you named fails to recognize that multiculturalism is causing undeniable shift in nativism at the national scale, all around the world. A few liberal cities doesn't change the trend. The blue print works for some urban centres who can brain drain the best to build flourishing societies is fails in other contexts. Of course the issue in the west is immigration so the solutions / atrocities are different. Whole of EU delegates war refugees via Turkey. Australia has Nauru Regional Processing Centre. US has your camps and political pressure to Mexico to militarize their migration routes etc. Canada is chill right now, but there's backlash towards multiculturalism model all the same.
> Inequality & Corruption
This is an intentional Chinese development strategy for anyone versed in the subject matter. Deng wanted to rapidly develop successful economic models via SEZ on coastal cities, then apply these models to the interior provinces which has languished. The pivot towards interior development happening now with goal of total poverty elimination by 2030s. Current per capita GDP is $10,000 (actual forecast is $12,000), followed by complete urbanization and poverty alleviation by 2030, followed by "China Dream" of per capita GDP of $40,000 by 2050. Some of the coastal cities are currently at $20,000 or $40,000 by PPP. Rampant corruption was a tool used to direct state resources to generally meritocratically selected local officials whose opportunities to graft is connected to tied to fulfilling state mandates, i.e. take a little on the side as long as it fulfills X growth goals to meet Y targets established by politburo. This is why Chinese corruption is correlated to growth, against conventional wisdom. The nature of Chinese mixed economy allows state-directed capitalistic development. The problems you highlighted are features (well hacks) not bugs. It's the only country in the world where this is true. Everywhere else corruption leads to stagnation. But excess wealth inequity via corruption also disrupts social stability hence anti-corruption drive. This is posited by Yukon Huang, former World Bank director for China, Russia, and Former Soviet Union Republics.
> Tigers & Development
The demand for other freedoms doesn't happen until certain levels of economic development is reached. So yes, IMO absolutely "fascist incubator" is a dark but necessary stage towards eventual liberalization, because that's the default path. CPC is consistently responding to peoples needs, there's been legal reforms, environmental improvements etc. People are fixated with money right now, eventually they'll worry about values. The result will likely be something along the lines of Singapore, a rich dictatorship with more western compatible values but all that is dependent on people getting rich first. There's been large regressions under Xi, but overall I'm positive about future trajectory assuming the next phase of income equalization and development and the demographic time bomb can be negotiated successfully. My view is as long as China has GDP of Iraq there will be no broad pressure to purse values - not democracy mind you - HK instability has ruined the Chinese appetite for that.
> CCP's values
You've just listed all the goals of every great power, some manner of hegemony and political influence like that's somehow explicit to CPC. SCS claims is a multi party dispute by many nations, CPC just happen to be powerful enough to win. Building an military that makes neighbours feel threatened is the natural byproduct of a big country modernizing it's military to fit security needs. Chinese defense spending is only 2% of GDP, lower than her neighbours. Of course, the goal is going to be regional hegemony like Munro doctrine. That's not CPC values, that's just inevitable side affect of great power geopolitics and the natural reaction by neighbors in response should be concern. Like is the CPC not suppose to have an military suitable to her size or have missiles that can hit Taiwan? The island 130km away.
Obviously the primary goal for CPC is power and self-survival, but that doesn't mean it doesn't also pursue other policies that improve quality of life, it just so happens those are safety and economically related right now - hence CPC having broad domestic support. Explicitly because Chinese do not want CPC to collapse, they just crawled out of period of anarchy, it's in most Chinese people's self-interest that a competent CPC survives.
Again you have the right to call on people to antagonize CPC because you think they're the historical tier bad human rights violator, but I think you'll find that's a profoundly American-centric analysis. Relative to Chinese population, the atrocities happening in China is comparable to US prison industrial complex and wars abroad. No amount of moralizing is going to make such equivocation not true. Just because US dominated social media ceaseless spam China bad and HK protests to the exclusion of all else doesn't mean the rest of the world minus a few staunch US allies will take the bait. It's a filter bubble of American exceptionalism. Ultimately, my argument is you can't eat your morals. So trying to undermine China via moral arguments is fruitless, especially coming from Americans, who, having voting rights is individually culpable for US behaviours that undermines their ability to critique. If the west wants to contain China, they need to offer better alternatives - vaunted US democracy and values is not it. There's a reason why so many nations are taking loans from China and many Indians would trade in their democracy for a few decades of Chinese development. Because it's more appealing than what the west has offered in a long time.
> That's not CPC values, that's just inevitable side affect of great power geopolitics and the natural reaction by neighbors in response should be concern.
I am extremely confident that Canada and Mexico have no fear of the US sending missiles to their cities, or troops into their territory. That's because we don't do things like constantly assert that their land is our land, threaten them with destruction, run propaganda campaigns to that affect, and develop weapons specifically with the goal of penetrating their defenses.
> You've just listed all the goals of every great power, some manner of hegemony and political influence like that's somehow explicit to CPC.
I fully admit that the US committed atrocities against Native Americans when we invaded North America. Slavery too was an abomination; Japanese internment camps were disgusting, our treatment of Chinese laborers and immigrants (as well as those from other parts of East Asia) was abhorrent, our criminal justice system is an affront to justice itself, our border control and immigration systems are deeply inhumane and unjust, etc. We would earn and deserve international condemnation if we did any of that stuff today. And we do, look at what organizations have to say about our immigration policies and our criminal justice system. I wish the West would exert more pressure on us, truly.
I'm happy to talk about those issues, just not in a thread about the CCP's actions. When are you going to stop using the actions of others as justification for the CCP?
And again if your argument is "well the US did it", why doesn't the CCP do the good things we do (rule of law, elections, etc.)?
> Obviously the primary goal for CPC is power and self-survival...
This is the definition of a corrupt regime.
> hence CPC having broad domestic support
How could you possibly measure that, given the CCP's surveillance state, re-education camps, vast propaganda network, and lack of any kind of free speech.
> Again you have the right to call on people to antagonize CPC because you think they're the historical tier bad human rights violator
"Antagonize" means "to cause someone to become hostile". By any reasonable standard, the CCP is a hostile regime. You cannot make something hostile if it already is. Do not try and imply the CCP is a peaceful, benevolent government when the facts clearly show otherwise.
It's also very telling that you think my words, my political beliefs, could cause a government to become hostile. Of course, when you're dealing with a regime with no respect for human rights, that's a concern.
> Relative to Chinese population, the atrocities happening in China is comparable to US prison industrial complex and wars abroad.
It is not. Here are the things we do not do as a matter of policy:
- Forced sterilization
- Forced rape and impregnation
- Organ harvesting
- Interning millions of people without cause
- Forcing millions of our own citizens to violate their religious beliefs and to renounce their religion
> US dominated social media ceaseless spam China bad and HK protests...
This is pretty funny. Have you seen all the stories about the CCP's efforts to censor anything about HK? This is the CCP's playbook, whether it's 8964, Xinjiang, Tibet, or HK.
> Ultimately, my argument is you can't eat your morals.
Again, this is a false choice. You absolutely do not have to choose between human rights, rule of law, and economic development. Again feel free to look at the Democracy Index for examples.
> So trying to undermine China via moral arguments is fruitless, especially coming from Americans, who, having voting rights is individually culpable for US behaviours that undermines their ability to critique.
I'm not saying the CCP has to listen to my government or me. They obviously won't; regimes that invest in propaganda as heavily as the CCP does aren't interested in listening. I'm not even telling them what to do. You're making excuses for their behavior, and I'm offering alternatives (invest in independent legal systems, build liberal institutions that respect human rights), but I'm not saying they should. I'm saying if they don't, that's the definition of an authoritarian regime, valuing its own power and enrichment over the well being of its people.
I am imploring the West and our allies to take action though.
I also think it's funny how you're trying to tie me to every action my government takes via our democratic elections like I won't accept it. I do wholeheartedly accept it, every American is responsible for the actions of our government. That's because our government not only represents us, it is us. To paraphrase The West Wing: when you try and hurl that at my feet, as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work. Because I will pick it up and wear it as a badge of honor.
> [XJ is] not about GDP, it's about safety and control over security.
If this were the CCP's goal they would grant Uighurs independence--or at least religious freedom. The violence would stop immediately.
Unless it is about GDP and power, then granting independence is a terrible idea.
> Tibet's GDP really blew up
Did the CCP ask the people of Tibet before annexing their land and installing a brutal police state in the name of "GDP growth and development"? This "ends justify the means" thinking is again the exact same logic used to justify insane horrors like the Stalinist industrialization of the USSR.
> the CCP tried US-style multiculturalism, but the Uighurs messed that up.
The anti-religion policies forced on the Uighurs by the CCP are nothing like policies in NYC, LA, or anywhere else in the US. There is no comparison. I'll again point out that the Uighurs were there first, and if the CCP were really interested in multiculturalism and human rights, they would simply leave or erect a liberal system that would protect those rights. But they're obviously not; what they are interested in is, as you say, "forced integration". It's ridiculous to think that policy can be applied without violence. The policy itself is violence.
> A few liberal cities doesn't change the trend.
You were saying there were no examples, so the CCP was justified in perpetrating cultural genocide. I listed several examples to counter. You are moving the goalposts like crazy.
> The blue print works for some urban centres... but nowhere else
It's true that our cities are more diverse than the rest of the country. But it's a common misconception that minorities only live in our cities. More Black Americans live in suburbs and rural areas than cities, and the Hispanic/Latinx representation outside of cities is evening out too (27% to 22%) [1].
Incidentally, it also leads to economic growth [2], your stated chief goal. So the CCP doesn't need to worry, they can simply follow our example.
> multiculturalism is causing undeniable shift in nativism at the national scale, all around the world.
There's no denying there's a lot of passion around multiculturalism and immigration in the US. But not even a plurality of Americans think they're bad. Clear majorities believe the opposite [3]; they think they're our strength, and reinforce our responsibility in taking in refugees [4]. Incredibly, support for refugees has even increased among Republicans.
There's a propaganda campaign largely led by Russia to leverage these issues to cause instability in multicultural societies. Your rhetoric here echos that campaign, and it's similarly incorrect. Americans are proud of our multiculturalism and our freedoms.
> Inequality & Corruption -- the CCP's plans
I admit to not being interested in the CCP's justification for running kangaroo courts (if an anti-corruption process that never holds a trial can be said to use courts), even if that justification is "they used corruption for economic growth", which is a weird kind of incidental confession. It only reemphasizes the CCP's commitment to economic growth and consolidation of power over any kind of human rights.
> The demand for other freedoms doesn't happen until certain levels of economic development is reached.
Then how do you explain nations like Uruguay, Mauritius, and Costa Rica? These countries are "full democracies" according to the Democracy Index (better even than the US), and their nominal GDP per capita is $17,118, $11,693, and $12,015 respectively. Feel free to look through this list [5] for other countries with similar--arguably worse--economic development to China, but with governments far more liberal than the CCP.
I agree China has unique challenges and it's had a rough history. But you simply can't hand wave the CCP's atrocities away with "but the people are poor". There are too many counterexamples for that.
> My view is as long as China has GDP of Iraq there will be no broad pressure to purse values - not democracy mind you - HK instability has ruined the Chinese appetite for that.
This is the opposite lesson they should learn. If they granted the 5 demands--something they could instantly and easily do--HK violence would be over. Same for Tibet and Xinjiang.
> Chinese defense spending is only 2% of GDP, lower than her neighbours.
China's GDP is massive. Cherry picking stats like this is disingenuous. China's military spending is the 2nd highest in the world, after the US.
> Like is the CPC not suppose to have an military suitable to her size or have missiles that can hit Taiwan?
What they should do is not shoot missiles within 30 miles of Taiwan's major cities (3rd Taiwan Strait Crisis), not develop weapons specifically with the aim of invading and annexing Taiwan, and not threaten "profound disaster" when Taiwanese politicians assert independence from China--which it obviously has. The "One China" policy is idiotic, belligerent, and responsible for so much violence.
Of course context varies but doesn't matter in relation to the response being a counter insurgency and domestic security issue. Which XJ is. It's not about GDP, it's about safety and control over security. Atrocities in the interest of that is a false argument, but it's also an predictable response as 9/11 demonstrated. Such comparison is not whataboutism, claiming so is just lazy rhetoric. Bringing up Native American treatment in NA is apt, XJ strategy is ostensibly "residential school" cultural genocide aka absolutely "re-education" with the ultimate goal of forced integration. The difference is China will backup stick of reeducation with carrot of development. XJ will have better infrastructure and growth opportunities than reservations up in Canada that doesn't have road access and water boiling notices. Incidentally Canadian Tribunal on indigenous treatment labelled it has "cultural genocide", but at the end of the day, few cares. Ultimately XJ will fall on the same deaf years as much as US and a handful of allies tries to weaponize it as geopolitical tool. Regardless, refer to explosive Tibet GDP growth and development in the last few years for context. As far as actual cost, building the infrastructure to intern a million is trivial compared to Chinese building capacities. The scope of XJ seems huge but relative to 1.4 billion people, it's literally trivial undertaking. The greater security apparatus throughout China on the other hand to maintain power is much more demanding, internal security budget exceeds that of military.
As for other strategies, they tried but it didn't work. The reason why Tibet and XJ are "autonomous regions" is because they were based of soviet oblasts where these regions and minorites retained extraordinary affirmative action privileges. Much more in the west - exemptions from taxes, family planning, bonuses to education enrollment on national test etc. The idea was multiculturalism salad bowl, but the riots and terrorists attacks failed hence integration strategy - the rational was melting pot analogy literally inspired by US and the cities you highlighted. Also these cities you named fails to recognize that multiculturalism is causing undeniable shift in nativism at the national scale, all around the world. A few liberal cities doesn't change the trend. The blue print works for some urban centres who can brain drain the best to build flourishing societies is fails in other contexts. Of course the issue in the west is immigration so the solutions / atrocities are different. Whole of EU delegates war refugees via Turkey. Australia has Nauru Regional Processing Centre. US has your camps and political pressure to Mexico to militarize their migration routes etc. Canada is chill right now, but there's backlash towards multiculturalism model all the same.
> Inequality & Corruption
This is an intentional Chinese development strategy for anyone versed in the subject matter. Deng wanted to rapidly develop successful economic models via SEZ on coastal cities, then apply these models to the interior provinces which has languished. The pivot towards interior development happening now with goal of total poverty elimination by 2030s. Current per capita GDP is $10,000 (actual forecast is $12,000), followed by complete urbanization and poverty alleviation by 2030, followed by "China Dream" of per capita GDP of $40,000 by 2050. Some of the coastal cities are currently at $20,000 or $40,000 by PPP. Rampant corruption was a tool used to direct state resources to generally meritocratically selected local officials whose opportunities to graft is connected to tied to fulfilling state mandates, i.e. take a little on the side as long as it fulfills X growth goals to meet Y targets established by politburo. This is why Chinese corruption is correlated to growth, against conventional wisdom. The nature of Chinese mixed economy allows state-directed capitalistic development. The problems you highlighted are features (well hacks) not bugs. It's the only country in the world where this is true. Everywhere else corruption leads to stagnation. But excess wealth inequity via corruption also disrupts social stability hence anti-corruption drive. This is posited by Yukon Huang, former World Bank director for China, Russia, and Former Soviet Union Republics.
> Tigers & Development
The demand for other freedoms doesn't happen until certain levels of economic development is reached. So yes, IMO absolutely "fascist incubator" is a dark but necessary stage towards eventual liberalization, because that's the default path. CPC is consistently responding to peoples needs, there's been legal reforms, environmental improvements etc. People are fixated with money right now, eventually they'll worry about values. The result will likely be something along the lines of Singapore, a rich dictatorship with more western compatible values but all that is dependent on people getting rich first. There's been large regressions under Xi, but overall I'm positive about future trajectory assuming the next phase of income equalization and development and the demographic time bomb can be negotiated successfully. My view is as long as China has GDP of Iraq there will be no broad pressure to purse values - not democracy mind you - HK instability has ruined the Chinese appetite for that.
> CCP's values
You've just listed all the goals of every great power, some manner of hegemony and political influence like that's somehow explicit to CPC. SCS claims is a multi party dispute by many nations, CPC just happen to be powerful enough to win. Building an military that makes neighbours feel threatened is the natural byproduct of a big country modernizing it's military to fit security needs. Chinese defense spending is only 2% of GDP, lower than her neighbours. Of course, the goal is going to be regional hegemony like Munro doctrine. That's not CPC values, that's just inevitable side affect of great power geopolitics and the natural reaction by neighbors in response should be concern. Like is the CPC not suppose to have an military suitable to her size or have missiles that can hit Taiwan? The island 130km away.
Obviously the primary goal for CPC is power and self-survival, but that doesn't mean it doesn't also pursue other policies that improve quality of life, it just so happens those are safety and economically related right now - hence CPC having broad domestic support. Explicitly because Chinese do not want CPC to collapse, they just crawled out of period of anarchy, it's in most Chinese people's self-interest that a competent CPC survives.
Again you have the right to call on people to antagonize CPC because you think they're the historical tier bad human rights violator, but I think you'll find that's a profoundly American-centric analysis. Relative to Chinese population, the atrocities happening in China is comparable to US prison industrial complex and wars abroad. No amount of moralizing is going to make such equivocation not true. Just because US dominated social media ceaseless spam China bad and HK protests to the exclusion of all else doesn't mean the rest of the world minus a few staunch US allies will take the bait. It's a filter bubble of American exceptionalism. Ultimately, my argument is you can't eat your morals. So trying to undermine China via moral arguments is fruitless, especially coming from Americans, who, having voting rights is individually culpable for US behaviours that undermines their ability to critique. If the west wants to contain China, they need to offer better alternatives - vaunted US democracy and values is not it. There's a reason why so many nations are taking loans from China and many Indians would trade in their democracy for a few decades of Chinese development. Because it's more appealing than what the west has offered in a long time.