Donations ok, but research grants? It does seem to be getting hysterical.
The unease around Huawei is justified, but does anyone think the 5 eyes or at least the US aren't all up in Cisco (et al) hardware and have been for decades? Every other country on Earth is subject to that. Not sure there's a moral highground here.
Watching this unfold I'm always wondering how much it is about natsec and how much is simply protecting corporate interests. Both are fair game for governments to do, but it's hard to grok.
I wonder that it didn't happen earlier. In the rush to get Chinese money western nations (and companies) ignored for a long time that China is a dictatorship. With all the things that entails.
It looks like those things come now in sharp focus once again and Huawei is the first victim of it. Regarding the moral high ground: IMO flawed democracy > dictatorship.
To avoid getting into an argument about the blanket term "dictatorship," can you list the specific things you think China does that are uniquely immoral (i.e., that the Five Eyes countries don't also do)?
- block access to the (non-Chinese) internet
- deny land ownership rights to everyone other than the gov't
- routinely exercise this power by confiscating homes and plots of land
- force the granting of CCP membership on corporate boards
- penalize people for criticizing the government
- including (sometimes permanent) house arrest
- put an entire region of the country (Xinjiang) under permanent martial law
Look, chairman Xi isn't shy in saying that he regards Mao Zedong as his model, and that his goal is for ethnic Chinese inside and outside the mainland to line up single-mindedly behind Mao Zedong thought and, since he had it enshrined in foundational documents, Xi Jinping thought. You might not call that "dictatorship", but a lot of us do, and we don't welcome the concerted effort to export it to our countries. It's an aggressive and expansive ideology.
I know, I know: democracy and individual liberty is an aggressive and expansive ideology too. All that means is that the world is likely to square off over the distinction. As it should be.
Who is "us" here? Anecdotally, a lot of Chinese people just don't care that much about the specifics of their political system as long as the economy keeps growing strongly and social harmony is encouraged. And yes, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory and now Xi Jinping Thought are regarded as important models and doctrines for how China should develop in the future. And they seem to be working well enough so far. "Democracy and individual liberty" may be okay for the West (though even here they're quite recent developments historically!), but China is a huge country with a very significant legacy of its own, and we should respect that.
- the money that China spends at Oxford and at US universities is an attempt to spread the ideology I describe
- inside China (I lived there for many years) there is ZERO ambiguity about the purpose of these soft power programs. it is only wumao working outside China who push the fiction that to object to propaganda programs that are focused on the West is to interfere in Chinese internal affairs.
- this has absolutely nothing to do with respecting the legacy of China inside its own borders. it is about a concerted "Unified Front" that is an open policy of the Chinese gov't and is being pursued using every manner of soft power or sometimes sharp power, but most especially money, outside the borders of China.
My question is what is unique to China. Do the Five Eyes not also invest in universities so they can spread their ideology throughout the world, using both soft power and bombs? Do they not also have ethnonationalist leaders?
If we are going to reject money for principled reasons, let us first have principles and see who fits them. Let us not say who we don't like and then find better-sounding reasons to dislike them.
luddy already comprehensively answered your question further up the thread with a list of power abuses unique to China. Nor is it some great mystery what principles we have that China does not respect. "Freedom of speech" is a big one. "Representative government" is another.
When you ask "can you list specific things", and someone does so, and then you ignore the answer and ask again, it begins to look like "whataboutism" in bad faith, rather than an attempt to further the discussion.
rejecting for example Confucius Institutes at universities because they are promulgating an ideology that is diametrically opposed to the foundational principles of universities in the West -- open discussion without political interference -- is a principle and a principle that fits perfectly. Tsinghua would reject a program from the West that pushed principles that for example reject Maoism. It doesn't fit. Where's the mystery?
Even if I agreed that China does nothing “uniquely immoral”, their lack of freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly means that it is harder to change whatever immoral things they are doing.
It's actually very simple. Cisco and Huawei are not on equal grounds. The first is a public company (as in publicly traded), HQed in the US, and subject to far more controls and oversight than Huawei, which is ultimately owned by the Chinese government.
Given the US and UK are allies, and China is not, and I would even consider them enemies, given their online activities, I'd say it's pretty reasonable.
Perhaps for the UK, but what about allies like France and Switzerland?
It's a strange moral relativism blindly defending backdoored products [0] from the US/Five Eyes who have been caught committing corporate espionage against these allies [1] for decades.
It sort of nullifies the entire argument of being in the "right". As far as IP theft goes, India has a bipartisan policy of willfully stealing and then exporting pharma IP, it's blatant and rampant.[2] Tens of billions stolen each year from the US alone and to add insult India pharma's biggest export market is the US. Yet you'll see none of the rhetoric that comes with China's rampant manufacturing IP theft.
If people are happy to admit it's essentially now a team sport and everyone is playing the game that's fine, but claiming to have moral superiority on these matters is amusingly easy to debunk.
It’s really curious that you seem to respond so frequently with whataboutism on HN posts that are critical of China. As I’ve noted before, this seems to happen every time an article about China comes out.
Donations ok, but research grants? It does seem to be getting hysterical.
The unease around Huawei is justified, but does anyone think the 5 eyes or at least the US aren't all up in Cisco (et al) hardware and have been for decades? Every other country on Earth is subject to that. Not sure there's a moral highground here.
Watching this unfold I'm always wondering how much it is about natsec and how much is simply protecting corporate interests. Both are fair game for governments to do, but it's hard to grok.
I wonder that it didn't happen earlier. In the rush to get Chinese money western nations (and companies) ignored for a long time that China is a dictatorship. With all the things that entails.
It looks like those things come now in sharp focus once again and Huawei is the first victim of it. Regarding the moral high ground: IMO flawed democracy > dictatorship.
To avoid getting into an argument about the blanket term "dictatorship," can you list the specific things you think China does that are uniquely immoral (i.e., that the Five Eyes countries don't also do)?
- block access to the (non-Chinese) internet - deny land ownership rights to everyone other than the gov't - routinely exercise this power by confiscating homes and plots of land - force the granting of CCP membership on corporate boards - penalize people for criticizing the government - including (sometimes permanent) house arrest - put an entire region of the country (Xinjiang) under permanent martial law
Look, chairman Xi isn't shy in saying that he regards Mao Zedong as his model, and that his goal is for ethnic Chinese inside and outside the mainland to line up single-mindedly behind Mao Zedong thought and, since he had it enshrined in foundational documents, Xi Jinping thought. You might not call that "dictatorship", but a lot of us do, and we don't welcome the concerted effort to export it to our countries. It's an aggressive and expansive ideology.
I know, I know: democracy and individual liberty is an aggressive and expansive ideology too. All that means is that the world is likely to square off over the distinction. As it should be.
> a lot of us
Who is "us" here? Anecdotally, a lot of Chinese people just don't care that much about the specifics of their political system as long as the economy keeps growing strongly and social harmony is encouraged. And yes, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory and now Xi Jinping Thought are regarded as important models and doctrines for how China should develop in the future. And they seem to be working well enough so far. "Democracy and individual liberty" may be okay for the West (though even here they're quite recent developments historically!), but China is a huge country with a very significant legacy of its own, and we should respect that.
What you don't get (or try to spin away) is this:
- the money that China spends at Oxford and at US universities is an attempt to spread the ideology I describe
- inside China (I lived there for many years) there is ZERO ambiguity about the purpose of these soft power programs. it is only wumao working outside China who push the fiction that to object to propaganda programs that are focused on the West is to interfere in Chinese internal affairs.
- this has absolutely nothing to do with respecting the legacy of China inside its own borders. it is about a concerted "Unified Front" that is an open policy of the Chinese gov't and is being pursued using every manner of soft power or sometimes sharp power, but most especially money, outside the borders of China.
My question is what is unique to China. Do the Five Eyes not also invest in universities so they can spread their ideology throughout the world, using both soft power and bombs? Do they not also have ethnonationalist leaders?
If we are going to reject money for principled reasons, let us first have principles and see who fits them. Let us not say who we don't like and then find better-sounding reasons to dislike them.
luddy already comprehensively answered your question further up the thread with a list of power abuses unique to China. Nor is it some great mystery what principles we have that China does not respect. "Freedom of speech" is a big one. "Representative government" is another.
When you ask "can you list specific things", and someone does so, and then you ignore the answer and ask again, it begins to look like "whataboutism" in bad faith, rather than an attempt to further the discussion.
rejecting for example Confucius Institutes at universities because they are promulgating an ideology that is diametrically opposed to the foundational principles of universities in the West -- open discussion without political interference -- is a principle and a principle that fits perfectly. Tsinghua would reject a program from the West that pushed principles that for example reject Maoism. It doesn't fit. Where's the mystery?
Even if I agreed that China does nothing “uniquely immoral”, their lack of freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly means that it is harder to change whatever immoral things they are doing.
As for specific things China has done, their latest campaign of persecution has been in the news recently: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/world/asia/china-uighur-m...
It's actually very simple. Cisco and Huawei are not on equal grounds. The first is a public company (as in publicly traded), HQed in the US, and subject to far more controls and oversight than Huawei, which is ultimately owned by the Chinese government.
Given the US and UK are allies, and China is not, and I would even consider them enemies, given their online activities, I'd say it's pretty reasonable.
Perhaps for the UK, but what about allies like France and Switzerland? It's a strange moral relativism blindly defending backdoored products [0] from the US/Five Eyes who have been caught committing corporate espionage against these allies [1] for decades.
It sort of nullifies the entire argument of being in the "right". As far as IP theft goes, India has a bipartisan policy of willfully stealing and then exporting pharma IP, it's blatant and rampant.[2] Tens of billions stolen each year from the US alone and to add insult India pharma's biggest export market is the US. Yet you'll see none of the rhetoric that comes with China's rampant manufacturing IP theft.
If people are happy to admit it's essentially now a team sport and everyone is playing the game that's fine, but claiming to have moral superiority on these matters is amusingly easy to debunk.
[0] https://www.infoworld.com/article/2608141/internet-privacy/s...
[1] https://articles.latimes.com/1995-10-11/news/mn-55816_1_cia-...
[1] https://www.rt.com/news/269251-nsa-sarkozy-hollande-wikileak...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2013/09/16/indias-wa...
It’s really curious that you seem to respond so frequently with whataboutism on HN posts that are critical of China. As I’ve noted before, this seems to happen every time an article about China comes out.