Personally, I could not tolerate living in a country where I have to watch what I say out of fear of me and my family ending up in prison for years. (Or in an internment camp, depending on my ethnicity.) Perhaps your Australian didn’t think they had anything interesting to speak out about; if they did, they might be singing a different tune.
By the way, a decade ago, Russian leadership suggested that Russia was a “democracy with Russian attributes,” and that it had to be understood on its own terms. Of course, it was just a convenient fig leaf for the erosion of freedoms and consolidation of power happening behind the scenes. We can all see where Russia is today.
I am glad Chinese people are still able to affect policy, but I wonder how long that will last. If there is a war with Taiwan, will the government tolerate dissent? I think not.
As I said earlier, I never claimed that China has no problems, and I welcome genuine efforts to improve the human rights situation in China. But current efforts are simply not genuine and are merely geopolitical attacks disguised as human rights concerns.
To make a comparison: the US also has many grave human rights abuses, including jailing people for saying "too interesting" things. But the US is not painted as some human rights abuse hellhole. It's clear that in the minds of many, human rights abuses in western countries can be bad but are at least redeemable or even incidental, while Chinese sins are inherent, systematic and unforgivable.
And again: here you hold political rights as the highest goal. I dispute this notion. This "one might be singing a different tune" can be reflected right back at you: if you've experienced how it is like to live in a country that has had 150 years of war and poverty, where eating your next meal is not guaranteed, with western "democratic" countries looting your treasures (and still having them on display in foreign museums today) back then when your country was itself dabbling in introducing democracy and republicanism, then maybe you would value safety and economic prosperity way more than you do now.
Said differently: when you are poor, you are not free, period. The ability to vote has no value on an empty stomach with thugs roaming the streets. The Chinese government has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, which is also a big human rights improvement. That does not excuse bad things, but it's worth putting things in perspective, something which many refuse to do because few are willing to hold an honest conversation about China.
> By the way, a decade ago, Russian president Dmitri Medvedev said that Russia had “democracy with Russian attributes,” and that Russia had to be understood on its own terms. Of course, it was just a convenient fig leaf for the erosion of freedoms and consolidation of power happening behind the scenes. We can all see where Russia is today.
Whatever problems you have with Russia has got nothing to do with China. Saying that "X has problem A, so Y must also have problem A" is a fallacy. Correlation is not causation.
> I am glad Chinese people are still able to affect policy, but I wonder how long that will last.
The ability to affect policy has increased over years, not decreased. In the past 15 years, government has improved systems to consult citizen.
This notion of yours have been around for at least 10 years. But when you ask Chinese how many of them would rather live in 25-30 years ago, you will not find many.
> If there is a war with Taiwan, will the government tolerate dissent?
You got this entirely backwards. Many people in China support reunification with Taiwan. If Xi Jingping announces today that he accepts Taiwanese independence, then he'll be overthrown tomorrow and replaced with another government that supports reunification.
Also, dropping this here: https://asiatimes.com/2022/11/harvard-guru-gives-biden-a-d-f...
Dr. William Overholt, Harvard professor: "we are creating the problem that we think we’re trying to deter."
In other words, all this talk about China invading Taiwan, and taking actions to "deter" China from invading Taiwan, incentivizes China to invade — because people fundamentally misread China's relationship with Taiwan. But the US government knows this and is deliberately stirring things up, breaking decades of diplomatic agreements, in order to goad China into shooting first so that the US can have a war with China while claiming moral superiority.
I did not: I am fully aware of this fact. However, while the majority of people in China may support a war with Taiwan, many will not. What will happen to those that oppose it? Will they be allowed to protest in the streets, or will they be brutally repressed? I know where I'd put my money.
As to everything else, China should be commended for bringing so many people out of poverty. But authoritarian regimes are not sustainable. Give too much power to one man, and he almost invariably gets it in his head that he is the state, and starts repressing, pogromming, and dismantling any person or institution that gets in his way. (Observe that Xi has already eliminated presidential term limits.)
I was born in Russia. The Soviet Union brought many millions out of poverty, including some of my direct ancestors. Was it all worth it in the end, though? I'm not so sure. The sins of the Soviet government ruined millions of lives and lead the country to where it is today: a crippled, fascistic, frothing-at-the-mouth oligarchy. Perhaps that's what's in store for China in the future. I really hope it manages to avoid this fate, but I'm not optimistic.
Here you are projecting Russia and Soviet Union onto China again. Yet where is your evidence that the projection is remotely fitting? I cited a source: prominent statesman Kishore Mahbubani who testifies that the Soviet Union is not at all comparable to China.
With your point wrt Taiwan you seem to be saying that if anti-war protests are suppressed then that is evidence that the country is a dictatorship. But the problem is that many countries — even western ones — suppresses dissent once they enter a war. Heck Germany is not even officially at war but anyone voicing public support for Russia can be legally reprimanded.
You also seem to ignore the aspect of whether people can actually enact policy changes. People protesting against the Middle Eastern wars didn't prevent them. What use is the ability to protest when they don't change anything?
I really don't know why everybody obsesses about Xi's term limits as if that's some sinister sign. Observe that Xi has been around for about as long as Merkel and Kohl.
More generally, all this talk about "authoritarian regimes" is projecting something into China which does not fit. Observe the fact that the late Qing dynasty and the Republic of China were extremely weak, and look where that got us: poor, exploited by foreign democratic powers. When you look at the past 2000 years of Chinese history then you see that prosperous times come when central government is strong. Conversely, when central government is weak, the people suffer. Whatever problems you have with Russia and Soviet Union should not be projected onto China. Whatever problems the west had with strong governments should not automatically mean that China's biggest problems are the same. We've had more problems with not having enough state power than too much state power.
> With your point wrt Taiwan you seem to be saying that if anti-war protests are suppressed then that is evidence that the country is a dictatorship. But the problem is that many countries — even western ones — suppresses dissent once they enter a war. Heck Germany is not even officially at war but anyone voicing public support for Russia can be legally reprimanded.
I bring up Russia because it's the authoritarian government I'm most familiar with. An authoritarian government doesn't "reprimand" people when it needs consent for a given policy: it imprisons them or worse. You can see this happening in Russia today with anti-war protests, where dissenters are thrown into prison for years or even sent to the front. I believe similar things were happening to the protesters in HK when China took over. Are you saying people won't be imprisoned for protesting military action in Taiwan? I find that unlikely.
If I lived in Germany, no part of me would fear imprisonment if I voiced support for Russia. (Though it's likely somebody would kick my ass.)
> I really don't know why everybody obsesses about Xi's term limits as if that's some sinister sign.
Why did he do it if not to consolidate power?
> Observe the fact that the late Qing dynasty and the Republic of China were extremely weak, and look where that got us — poor, exploited.
Authoritarian policies also got you the Great Chinese Famine, leading to tens of millions of lives pointlessly thrown away. Was anyone held accountable? The answer is no, because an authoritarian government's "strength" is also its weakness when fault lies with the strongman at the helm. (As an aside, Yang Jisheng is the author of perhaps the most comprehensive account of the famine, "Tombstone." Are there any universities in China teaching his work? Are his books even allowed to be published?)
I understand you are familiar with Russia. But China is not Russia. You don't know China. By your reasoning ("Russia was X so China must also be X"), WW2 Germany (a democracy) was fascist therefore all other democracies must be fascist too.
"Mehrere Bundesländer haben bereits angekündigt, das öffentliche Zeigen des Symbols zu ahnden. Grundlage ist der Paragraf 140 im Strafgesetzbuch zur „Billigung von Straftaten“. Demnach kann dies mit bis zu drei Jahren Haft oder einer Geldstrafe bestraft werden"
---
The famine was a result of inexperienced governance in peace time, not "authoritarian policies". Just like the Irish potato famine was not a result of "democratic policies".
The Cultural Revolution was not a display of authoritarian power. Instead, it was mob rule fueled by revolutionary zeal. During the Cultural Revolution, the state was largely non-functional. Many people joined Mao's campaigns willingly, as opposed to Mao sending his army to force people at gunpoint to do things.
The Cultural Revolution was an attempt to fix a broken country, by leaders who had little experience with peacetime operations. Today, Mao's mistakes are officially recognized. Both good and bad came out of the Cultural Revolution: there was a famine, but life expectancy also rose by more than a decade. One also has to keep in mind that famines were a regular thing in China during previous rulers, so with this context one can say that that famine was the last one China ever had. Given all this, to then describe the Cultural Revolution and the famine as "authoritarian rule" is hugely reductionist and misleading.
The sort of reductionist rhetoric you employ can just as easily be applied to democracies. Nobody was accountable for when the British Empire put China on drugs. Nobody was accountable for the Iraq war. By your own reasoning, "democratic policies" lead to imperialism — a wrong conclusion due to reductionism.
The point isn't "the US also bad". The point is "the US is also bad and people/countries allow them to". Big distinction.
Yes the west is far bigger than the US. However the west is also broadly aligned with the US. Whereas e.g. western Europe condemns and even sanctions China for what it sees as human rights abuses, they look the other way when it comes to US abuses, giving no more than a "tssk". There has been no diplomatic sanctions against the US for its illegal Iraq invasion (amongst others). Worse, some of them even join the US, such as Australia who went to Afghanistan and then killed a bunch of children. The west is bigger but many are complicit.
Of course US crimes don't excuse Chinese crimes. But when double standards are so widespread, it's simply impossible to have any kind of honest or constructive discussion. The double standard must be destroyed first.
Personally, I could not tolerate living in a country where I have to watch what I say out of fear of me and my family ending up in prison for years. (Or in an internment camp, depending on my ethnicity.) Perhaps your Australian didn’t think they had anything interesting to speak out about; if they did, they might be singing a different tune.
By the way, a decade ago, Russian leadership suggested that Russia was a “democracy with Russian attributes,” and that it had to be understood on its own terms. Of course, it was just a convenient fig leaf for the erosion of freedoms and consolidation of power happening behind the scenes. We can all see where Russia is today.
I am glad Chinese people are still able to affect policy, but I wonder how long that will last. If there is a war with Taiwan, will the government tolerate dissent? I think not.