Wonder how many holds similar view about NSL: CCP/Xi fundamentally believe their own method, and also they need to step in and "help" HK, otherwise HK will be destroyed/infiltrated. Their intention is mostly on the "helping" HK side, not hurting it. This to me is the typical "strong-arm" parenting method that is very common in China (think tiger-mom) - "I am doing this for your own good, so trust me and follow whatever I said."
Donald Trump is the Black Swan the CCP never saw coming. The Wuhan Virus is the killer app that will end Xi Jinpig dictatorship. The CCP is running out of cash, the national security law for HK is a cover for a money run on HK banks. HK is sitting on $1 trillion in USD capital assets with another $5 trillion offshore.
Hong Kong was the most elaborate money laundering scam the CCP ever pulled on the West. It worked for 23 years until Trump pulled the plug last month. More to come.
I shared this with my dad. He’s doing something. What I do not know. Not old enough to have a trading account, old enough with a lot of free time to do research.
Is it just me or somebody is talking like Kyle Bass of Hyman Capital who made a massive short bet on RMB in 2016 not touting a massive short on HKD de-pegging? lol.
They are a pragmatic bunch over there, so there must have been something they found. It’s certainly a vector for shenanigans (closed source, Chinese parent company that ultimately must acquiesce to BJ...)
I think we will see the app blocked in the US. This will be the first ban on a Chinese info-tech product in the US but not the last. It will set a precedent. Thing is, China has already banned most US internet services, so what’s their play?
There goes any hope of BABA reaching AMZN in the near future.
The piece gets me thinking about 1968 (once again, this year): In 1968, the Soviets invaded a liberalizing Czechoslovakia. Historians now suggest the Soviet invasion might have been contingent on American carnage at home; domestic turmoil rendered the US unable to mount punishing retaliatory action. “In August 1968, the contentious Chicago Democratic Convention sparked serious civil unrest in Chicago at the very moment of the Warsaw Pact invasion,” writes Jeremy Suri.
This episode from 1968 suggests two reasons to be wary re: US-China today. (1) China will seek to take advantage of American domestic chaos and see it as a “window of strategic opportunity,” much as they viewed 9/11. (2) PLAN/PLAAF exercises around Taiwan are on the rise this year. Is Hong Kong the precursor or culmination of an emboldened China’s foreign policy in 2020?
A perennial debate amongst China watchers is whether China acts aggressively abroad out of internal insecurity or conversely out of internal strength. How would you answer this question, given recent events?
It is indeed strange, why China abandoned a successful foreign policy in favour of a confrontational one. Ideology may provide an answer.
From Deng Xiao Ping's "cat period" until 2013, pragmatism overruled ideology.
Right after Lehman it became consensus, that China must differentiate itself in many aspects and, broadly speaking, put ideology ahead of pragmatism.
So in 2013 previous principle was reversed, Maoist "struggle" became an overarching term, and that includes foreign policy and related activity.
Here I become a bit speculative. In spite of (at that time vice president) Xi Jin Ping's claim in 2011, that China will never export revolution, fundamental realisation seems to be, that socialism can only work if it is global (a Leon Trotsky postulate), which implies the need to stand up for proletarians everywhere and to support their "struggle".
Why: Socialism is a road to communism. Communism is also defined by absence of traditional government, that by default must include absence of traditional world order. If you are the only country without government, then you must fail.
So I speculate, that at least exporting "struggle" has become a foreign policy task. Hence aggression, to confront the class enemy.
If one looks the current Chinese governance/economic system objectively, it has very little to do with traditional socialism or communism (defined by Max, Lennon and Mao). Instead, it is a non-democratic Voting single party state capitalism, with very little social safety net (health care, education, pension) vs. today’s European socialism or traditional communism. In terms of State Owned Enterprise as % of GDP, it’s not that different from countries like France (~50% I believe). So in some way, it’s economic system is not so different from public sector dominated European countries, and governance ideology is Much closer to Singapore and Russia. In my view, its domestic and global political behavior has a lot to do with internal issues that impact the Gov. ruling legitimacy, e.g. corruption level, economic well-being for the mass population, nationalists sentiment of domestic mass population (TW, HK, XJ, Tibet all falls in here), rather than any global ambition.
Could I please get some suggestions on where I can go to learn more about how China’s civil government works, particularly in how it taxes Chinese citizens and its social programs, etc.
I’ve come to realize that I’m very ignorant in how the average Chinese person pays and gets benefits from their government. Much in the way that I pay taxes in America for social security, Medicare, state and local taxes, pay my 401k and IRA, rent/mortgage, etc.
Despite studying China for much of my young life, there are many things I still don’t know about how average Chinese people deal with this kind of stuff. And honestly, I don’t understand at all how general internal Chinese bureaucracy and laws work.
I feel like this will be very important to know in helping me refine my opinions when talking to my peers about China.
I noticed that their data goes to 2016 only. And the report has just been published! I found that a bit puzzling. And I wonder if perceptions have changed since. Frankly, I was a bit frustrated to see the period covered by their polling. Am I missing something re this report?
The perception of government in China has vastly improved, because the improvements are real. It feels more orderly, clear-cut, rule-based and with equal, fair treatment. Compared to 10 years ago, change for the better is evident. The whole apparatus works much more professionally.
It comes at a price of more control, less individual anonymity, even previously unheard of tax compliance and more ideological education through the media and the internet. So it is not without shortcomings.
Happily, COVID-19 rendered most facial recognition obsolete.
Good am from the East Coast of U.S. Please, does anyone have insight into how the average Chinese person is viewing the West, and the U.S. E.U. in particular these days? I have gotten the sense form this forum, that the PRC's tight controls of the messaging on almost all platforms available to the Chinese people promotes anti-west propaganda, and this is being echoed by the "woman-on-the-street." Just wondering if COVID has had an impact in altering the perceptions of the average Chinese person. ty.
It's difficult to generalize about "the average Chinese person", because China is a large and diverse country, and there is no way to do a useful poll because people know that they cannot speak freely in the current political climate.
I think it's interesting to look at children to try get an unfiltered sense of where things are at. I live in a tier one city and can say that a year or two ago kids on the street would call me 老外 or 外国人. Nowadays kids point and shout 美国人. It's anecdotal, but to me their attitude comes across as more antagonistic than it did before. I feel like Americans specifically are being framed as the new Big Bad for kids.
Amongst adults, it's harder to get a read. There is definitely a (justified) belief that the west utterly failed with controlling corona. This isn't exactly translated as a negative view of other countries, though, it's more something that the state media is using to try bolster national pride, which helps to distract from the economic issues that are really what's worrying everyone.
Macro PM mentioned BLM protests, and I agree this was a popular conversation topic amongst "cosmopolitan" elites. The state media does a great job in using these sorts of events to portray all other countries of the world as violent, dangerous and racist. I'm not sure if the goal is to make people hate other countries, I think it's more just to keep them fearful and attached to the "safety" of the motherland. It also works as a "what about" technique to derail any questions the elites might have about domestic injustices.
I think at the end of the day most average Chinese people don't spend a lot of time thinking about the US or the EU at all. They are much more worried about the domestic economy, the cultural pressure to get married or have kids, the ever-rising housing prices, issues with hukou and school, all that sort of stuff. Foreigners just exist on the periphery as 黑手 or 外国朋友 depending on where the wind is blowing that day.
COVID, or the west’s failure to contain it, has reinforced the Chinese perception of themselves as the superior race. At their core the Chinese are racist. This racism was suppressed during the Republican era and the civil war period because they were weak and focused on fighting Japan and, later, the internal struggle. The Chinese lost a lot of face during this time. Now that they have guns and money, it’s payback time. The attitude of the Chinese government and Chinese companies is exactly the attitude of the 官員 toward the common man in imperial times, arrogant and condescending.
This is a blunt description, but it is largely true. 中华意识/华夷之辨 always has a strong racial/racist component in it, and it has been deeply ingrained in the default mode of thinking of every person born and raised in China who does not have access to an "alternative viewpoint" when they were young.
Took me quite some time to realize it and even more time for painful "detoxification."
The way Chinese society is traditionally organized (i.e., 各人自扫门前雪, 莫管他家瓦上霜) seems to justify that 中华意识 is actually the glue that sticks people together as a nation. Ironically, the West also appears to be going along with a similar trend in recent years, when people's consensus on individual rights and a liberal political process seems to have been replaced by hashtags, labels, bitter crusades, and the "cancel culture."
thanks Qingtian. it is an interesting comparison, I agree-- the fragmentation and divisiveness of our domestic politics is driven by the never-ending power struggle between the monied and educated elite read: predominately older, white males and their reactions to what they see as a loss of the "American Culture" but only as it pertains to them and through their eyes.
I believe it is well-known that the issue with the right is they see "American Culture" as something predetermined and immutable. Whereas, in reality, "American Culture" itself is a product of constant social change and disruptive innovation (e.g., the United States' founding was a direct consequence of the rebellion and sedition against King George III).
The issue with the left, on the other hand, is that they overlook the tremendous time and effort it takes for most change to occur to achieve the social condition they prefer—provided that such a social condition can be maintained over time (i.e., it becomes part of future's "American Culture"), a precondition they often fail to take into account.
But the toxicity we see today appears to go beyond the traditional left-right dichotomy, and there could be many complex reasons behind it. One possible factor I can think of is information overload resulting from technological advances, which has dramatically exaggerated people's expectations as well as fears.
"The issue with the left, on the other hand, is that they overlook the tremendous time and effort it takes for most change to occur to achieve the social condition they prefer" well said.
On the "right" yes, the predominate "current" overt cultural desire of both the monied elites and the "base" seems to be a freezing of a culture in time.
In reality this "time" is nostalgic at best; it was not (and still is not) a reality for most of America--even in the decade or so of post-WWII white "suburban" America. One can argue, this "culture" was created through a deliberate hegemonic public-private propaganda campaign to move (mostly) white returning G.I.s back into the domestic workforce, displacing white women (and arguably) minorities back to the home through the retooling of the industrial enterprise from war-machine production, to domestic consumer goods.
However, the industrial transformation was not complete to consumer, but rather a massive expansion. The perpetual "wars" (Korea, Vietnam, various cold-war incursions, up through the current mid-east morass) kept the military-industrial complex humming along.
My digression is to say there is a HUGE financial incentive to prop-up a stable dominate "white" cultural narrative. I agree with your last paragraph--However, I would note that if one looks back 65 years (circa 1954) the human-rights' ideas driving the change in/for the Civil Rights Movement have made little substantive movement forward toward fruition.
I would add that the "toxicity" of the current "debate" is also a deliberate and highly technology-driven mis-information campaign(s) from (mostly) the "right." The "right" I would argue, is on the "losing side" of the current national cultural narrative shift. They also have, not surprisingly, the "most" to lose culturally and most importantly, financially.
Average Chinese sentiment is pretty negative on how the West has handled COVID, probably rightfully so. Chinese mass media has just played up how CCP is keeping them safe (eg, Beijing outbreak contained quickly and safely) while highlighting the US's rising case, death numbers, etc. Similarly there was a lot of focus on the BLM protests from the perspective that US police are brutal, US race relations are unfair, and portraying US looting and lawlessness.
Most "average" Chinese are pretty heavily influenced by the CCTV media bubble, so fairly nationalist, and see western criticisms as unfair/racism/jealousy over China's growth.
I think this trend has been ongoing in the last decade of growth and propaganda, and the COVID situation has accelerated this idea of western leadership decline (particularly the US) and effectiveness of the Chinese model.
If we supposed China takes a lead role in developing a successful vaccine, what would that look like going forward? Xi pledged to treat one as a "global public good" in May, two weeks after the ambassador to the EU initially declined to do so at that international teleconference. Would a credible claim to having invented a (major part of/breakthrough in) the vaccine be an effective way to wipe the slate clean? That would maybe be why China has been targeting vaccine research specifically for cyber-espionage, according to the FBI/DHS press release in May.
I mean, you already have two dozen-ish Muslim-majority states with leaders that have pretty much stated they don't care, unfortunately. I wouldn't expect it to do much by way of US public opinion, but particularly in the developing world it seems like they think a vaccine could be key to good relations. At the very least, it could "cancel out" some of negative sentiment against China for its role in letting the pandemic get to this point, perhaps.
Yes, the "pragmatists" who always have some great reason why we can never be decent to each other. The sooner we're done with their madness, the better.
Hot prediction: Vaccine distribution is accompanied by a ham-fisted propaganda campaign as to how humanity owes a tremendous debt to China. This, like with PPE diplomacy, heavily dilutes global gratitude.
Though, I'd probably say, the Chinese rolling out a vaccine would probably be a great excuse for "pragmatists" to try normalise relations.
As much as they say they'd treat it as a "global public good", I have a hard time seeing a world where the CCP is able to distribute vaccines globally in meaningful fashion while they've still got 1.5 billion arms to stick needles in back home.
Also, Daniel, any vaccine against the Covid-19 is only likely to have a 40-50% effective rate no matter where it comes from. Anyone young and healthy can likely skip the vaccine.
My point is more that "herd immunity" is being achieved without the vaccine. Based on some results that New York City released earlier, they figured that 21% of their population already had the virus. That was 1 1/2 months ago.
You could hold an alternate sporting event that highlights cooperation. Ask athletes and countries to participate on a voluntary basis. But we don't need another Berlin Olympics.
As a sporting event, we wouldn't need countries to boycott the Beijing event or send their top athletic talent. Just having people from different countries around the world attend would make a huge statement, an indelible stain on Beijing's shameful event, and a finger in the eye of Xi Jinping. It would be the "Human Rights Olympics."
You could also ask some portion of the Uyghur or Chinese expat community to host a protest event holding out the best of world civilization against the PRC's worst. That would be something.
I love this idea, and would totally support it (if someone else organizes it!)
By the way, this was tried before, in 1936.
A global "People's Olympiad" was organized in Spain for July 19-26, which would have ended 8 days before the Berlin Olympics. But the Spanish Civil War started on July 17, with Hitler's backing and support.
Would it be worth all the effort to have an alternative Olympiad in 2022? My feeling is that it would be safer to shut the whole thing down (even if there weren't a pandemic to worry about, which I expect there will be in early 2022).
Refusal of all athletes and teams to show up for them or train - sign a petition indicating that. Then nobody show up. They will lose so much face if no one shows up.
But it will be hard to pull off. But basically all the participants need to make their voices heard. Arise ye who wish not to be slaves!
There is one advantage the West has; the winter games are dominated by countries that would be more inclined to care about the situation in Xinjiang. If just the U.S., Canada, Norway, Sweden and Finland boycott, it'd be a much smaller event.
Any thoughts on what the authorities are trying to achieve by pumping up the stock-market given the last effort in 2015 ended in tears? Do they not learn?
They're not? They immediately walked back the comments, warning against market bubbles today and having the state pensions sell equities, clearly signaling they don't want to create a 2015.
That said, their goal is to create an SPX-like (or NASDAQ-like) capital market system that is stable, low volatility, invest-able with a good return profile for international and domestic investment.
The problem is it's easier said than done, and given the lack of liquidity and retail non-institutional dominance still of the domestic market, it's hard to micromanage like that. But as with all things in China, CCP wants to control not just the direction but the speed of change!
They are trying to show that the China model still works - any problem they have - just throw money at it or pull a lever in the government to make a change. The Peoples Currency by Subacchi and Red Capitalism by Walter cover some of this. China does not want to show weakness and want to show the continued strength of their nation - by any means necessary.
What I having trouble grasping is why the PRC Seems to be fumbling everything on the foreign policy front right now. I know the virus is like 80 to 90% of that but Chinese elites behavior towards Australia, India, among others, seems tone deaf and foolish. I have always understood Chinese leadership to be foreign educated, fluent in English, etc, but then they do things like try to outlaw support for Hong Kong independence worldwide. Are you serious? I know that they have a domestic audience that is more important than the foreign one but one would think they could accomplish the things they want to accomplish without being so openly, brazenly misguided
Because the CCP needs an enemy to define itself against. And if the enemy is passive and 'not making an appearance', you poke it with a stick until you can say 'See how it roars, that's why us Chinese should protect our Maoist values and defend ourselves against western influence.' The west has slumbered despite prodding. Now it is starting to wake up to play the role that the CCP needs it to play
This article by Minxin Pei is illuminating in this regard. His main point is that diplomats have to please the Party rather than advice Beijing on the outside world.
China has isolated itself. The only way to break the isolation seems to be to fix the relations with the US. Hence Wang Yi "Three Lists" plan to re-open talks with the US.
Trouble is, they don't have partners in Washington anymore, as we enter the presidential lame duck period with lots of campaigning based on a strong anti-China theme going on.
No-one would want to be seen shaking hands with Chinese officials.
Wang Yi's claim that "China will not and cannot become another America" clearly intends to appeal to those on the left, many of whom have long held the view that US foreign policies are based on illiberal hegemony and imperialist mentality.
However, in this case, it is delusional to take Wang's words seriously. Politically, China has mostly been left alone in its own way, as reflected by how the West has engaged with China in the past 30 years. So why a sudden rush of "imperialist impetus" now? Some may argue that this is because of Trump, but just turning around and taking a quick look at all other countries in the Five Eyes as well as at China's neighbors proves that such an argument is flawed.
The West is standing up to China because it is crucial for self-preservation. Those on the left need to be reminded that whatever rights they enjoy and whatever activism they preach and practice are, first and foremost, founded on the very fact that they live in a society with civil liberties. And those civil liberties are not to be taken for granted--something they are fully aware of when it comes to Trump, but is conveniently ignored elsewhere.
Well, there are a number of examples of all the things "China will not/never do/become", that China actually did and became.
"Politically, China has mostly been left alone in its own way, as reflected by how the West has engaged with China in the past 30 years." I have read this sentence several times and still don't get what it could possibly refer to.
Quite often there are unfounded, unprovable, blanket assertions, that are left standing, unchallenged, and therefore become fact.
Can you please elaborate, what are the specifics of the case you are making, while staying clear of common place generalisations?
Wang Yi's speech was a reference to the political system. Since you quoted him, I thought that you had read it already, but if you need some more context, here is a passage from Reuters:
> The two countries should not seek to change each other, said Wang. "China cannot and will not become another America," he said, adding that a socialist system was suited to China and the choice of its people.
To be clear, that sentence you alluded to is saying that China's political system has not fundamentally changed in the past 30 years. It is still in its top-down authoritarian form that lacks the legitimacy to rule, unlike one provided by an electoral mechanism. On the other hand, forcing a change has not been a prerequisite for the West to engage with China during the same period.
To challenge a perceived status quo, the burden of proof is usually on the challenger. If you have evidence that refutes the common understanding of China as a political entity that is vastly different from the US, please provide them here instead of merely offering a rebuttal of the "common place generalizations" type.
By the way, I assume you understand that not every comment is intended to make a case.
When the only other global power has vacated its role and has even become more antagonistic on international issues by veering back towards nativist zero-sum engagements with allies, it allows for new norms of diplomacy to fill growing voids. China has become more assertive because it can. That it is clumsy or discomforting to others may not be their primary concern. Just like economic, political and military advantages that the US or other nations may have afforded them privileges we take for granted even as they irked or angered many.
Well, I don't think the issue really is whether they can, since of course they can; they're a sovereign nation whose representatives can adopt whichever strategy they'd like. The question rather is *why* they're doing it, since all it seems to be doing is driving away EU and Asian countries who otherwise might be receptive to a more genial Chinese approach by contrast with the erratic and oft-adverserial Trump administration.
Embassies and diplomats who enrage or provoke powers whom you need to convince, not just intimidate, absolutely should be a concern to Beijing, but it seems like they're not, which is what has a lot of us wondering, it seems. Where's the margin in your French embassy broadcasting lies about how France is deliberately killing off its old folks? Even if you're looking to project a more vigorous, unapologetic diplomatic front that does nothing for you since it has absolutely nothing to do with China.
It certainly seems counterproductive in many instances. The art of international diplomacy is taking a turn for the worse in many capitals. That said, countries commenting on matters where they have little or no skin in is hardly a rarity even if ill-informed, insensitive or biased. We just are used to certain countries/leaders doing it but not so much China, until recently. Perhaps it is an effort to project a view that the international community shouldn't become too accustomed to China staying in it's 'place'.
The Rise of Great Powers is a mandatory watch for all CPC officials. It is produced by Chinese propoganda outlet and asserts , among other things, that the Soviet Union Because of Gorbachevs 'opening up'
HK can never be free or remain 'open' like it was...Xi doesnt want to be a Gorbachev presiding over the collapse of the CPC
A full analysis of China's foreign policy direction and recent missteps is very complex, and there's a lot of contributing factors to why they are seemingly so out of touch now.
A lot of the current set of responses are a result of ongoing foreign strength projection that started over the last 5ish years after Xi's power consolidation. Launching Wolf Warrior diplomacy, etc. Chinese politics are pretty slow moving and once some of these trends got started, it is hard to reverse course even though these tools are very ill-suited to 2020's events. COVID, HK, and higher attention on China issues accelerated a lot of the pressure points of their foreign policy, and since their response has been to stay the course with strength projection, it can look comically out of touch from the outside.
Furthermore to your question specifically, while a lot of the Chinese leadership are fairly well educated, the rise and fall of cliques and power groups in the government matters a lot. Xi himself is a strongman leader from the Provincial governance side of the party, and has elevated a lot of similarly strong-handed members from the provinces and military. The "reformist" technocratic cliques within the party haven't actually been that ascendant not vocal in setting some of these more aggressive policies. There are exceptions but I'm generalizing for sake of space.
why is outlawing hk independence a surprise to you? One country, two systems, Basic Law, how much independence got traction with enough to worry about over the years, especially the last...
Xi is scared, sees nothing to lose, and is going for broke. Or he's quite deluded, take your pick. The backlash against the PRC is building rapidly and will make post-Tiananmen look like the proverbial dinner party.
I very much buy the argument that much of it is reactionary defensiveness. Both with India and Australia, the CCP was extremely keen on making sure it was not perceived as giving an opening to being kicked when it's down, so to speak, even at the cost of important relationships. India in particular I think there's really strog motivation to make sure New Delhi knows which of the two is the rising great power, and which of the two is just a regional power. China has to be more delicate with the United States (not that things aren't still really ugly) and may be spending all its political capital vis-à-vis hawks/nationalists domestically on not going pedal to the metal against the US right now.
It really does seem as though the #1 priority is posturing for domestic leadership to ensure promotions. And after what happened with Zhao Lijian, who can blame them? The PRC leadership has sent clear signals on what it wants to see. Too bad for them that it's a disaster from a diplomatic standpoint, of course, but the signals are there.
I think they sense that this is THEIR moment and it is time to assert influence. I am surprised that Chinese diplomats are openly threatening European governments with "consequences" if they resist Huawei. By the way, the fact that the Chinese government is openly pushing Huawei indicates that the government sees it as a strategic asset. They are not doing it to create jobs back in Shenzhen. Every time a Chinese diplomat makes a public statement about Huawei, it undercuts the company's claims that it is completely independent.
I would guess, the vast majority of enquiries are same as everywhere else: Common crime, e.g. fraud, theft, blackmail, etc., non-political.
Don't forget, there are endless numbers of Chinese gangs operating in all Asian countries, defrauding mostly fellow Chinese, be it mainland, Hong Kong, Singapore or other overseas Chinese in Philippines, Indonesia, etc.
Blanket non-cooperation means rising above the law and offering safe haven to this and other riff-raff. FB and others need to be more specific what they refuse and what they accept.
However, they may no longer be allowed to operate in HK.
Any thoughts here about US universities using Zoom and PRC and Hong Kong students? A scenario: a PRC or HK student attending class remotely in PRC or HK and a forbidden topic comes up, say a bio class and genome sequencing ethics and PRC security policies comes up. Would the student be at risk if they were to speak up? Is there anything a university should do to anticipate such a risk? Is there any alternative?
I also wondered this. I suppose one alternative is to use other video conference platforms like BlueJeans that don't have servers in China and aren't subject to its laws.
BlueJeans an interesting idea. I’m curious if US universities are prepared if, say, a PRC or HK based remote learning Harvard or UC student were to be arrested for something said over Zoom while in class. It seems to me that some China studies faculty is concerned about this, but not widely thought about in admin, faculty or students. I suppose HK institutions and NYU Shanghai or Duke Kunshan must be thinking
It was not common for Hong Kong people to speak out against the Communist Party before, because that's simply not done in professional circles, and we all knew that someone could someday be punished for it.
But now the day has officially come, and it's just such a flipping shame that we were too scared to speak clearly before when it was still legal.
And everyone wanted to keep professional options open. Speaking out against the Party could bar you from entering Mainland China. It's understandable, but I was always surprised by how little people were willing to care about all this, until 1 year ago.
Yes, they would be at risk if they speak up. This is the insidious nature of communism. You put certain organizations in place or istitutions in place - it cause self censorship no matter where you are. If you do speak up, your class mates 'are watching you'
I dont really see an alternative. Unless they have a plan to not go back to China and get citizenship somewhere else
I think this is why it is important for western countries to encourage immigration from Hong Kong and other parts of China. Right now a lot of people feel like they can't speak out because it may affect their future or their family's future. But if they can see a future for themselves where they can build a good life outside the reach of the party, then i think they might feel more empowered to be critical of it. And criticism from ordinary people in the diaspora is surely going to reach the domestic 老百姓 more effectively than anything foreign allies might say.
I agree in part, but we are not certain yet how many will want to leave. The lure of Chinese culture is very powerful and most Chinese would rather live inside China than out. 老中寧願和自己人一起生活，不要跟外國人在一起。Also, the diaspora, while a source of money and knowledge, does not have a good track record of influencing internal politics. Where are the protesters of 天安門事件now? They are in the US with advanced degrees and comfortable lives.
Predict the future....where is China in 1 year from now? Less hated internationally, sanctions, a warming of relations, Taiwan invasion...is trump in office? If Biden, then what happens to US - China rels?
Reacting to the news that a Chinese-born lawmaker in New Zealand won't run again because of concerns over China's influence, what would it take to create a global backlash against Xi Jinping? What mechanisms or tactics would work?
I feel like we are seeing the closest to a global backlash yet. When Those reports came out a month or so a go about BJ believing the backlash about China / COVID19 would be serious As Tiannanmen, I was a little incredulous.
US putting sanctions on officials with ties to Xinjiang crackdown and the HK HR act and the related one about XJ show america leading the charge.
The unravelling and evemtual renaming of Confucius institutes is a big step that is anti China. People basicallly stood up, declared their opposition to the Kongzi Xueyuan and in weakness the Chinese acquiesced by either leaving that campus and eventually renaming themselves.
Britain and other countries opening their doors to HK freedom fighters is big too. Can anyone provide more examples...
Responding to Daniel, there are lots of other examples. Australia is outraged that a lawmaker took money from Beijing-related interests. India kicked TikTok and other Chinese apps out of the country at the same time it was fighting Chinese troops along the border. Other countries are waking up to the damage inflicted by the BRI. Sri Lanka lost control of a harbor. Either Peru or Bolivia (I forget which) is saddled with a big Chinese-built dam that was located too close to volcanoes and can't be operated, etc. How can all this information be collected and turned into more than the sum of the parts?
To be fair, the momentum against Confucius Institutes has been building for some time now, and quite rightly so. COVID may have pushed it along a bit, but I wouldn't call that movement a product of COVID.
Good point. I was trying to give a general account of some things that happened / ing that in the last 5 years or so that show a global backlash is mounting regardless of the start date.
Wonder how many holds similar view about NSL: CCP/Xi fundamentally believe their own method, and also they need to step in and "help" HK, otherwise HK will be destroyed/infiltrated. Their intention is mostly on the "helping" HK side, not hurting it. This to me is the typical "strong-arm" parenting method that is very common in China (think tiger-mom) - "I am doing this for your own good, so trust me and follow whatever I said."
What do you all think about Miles Kwok?
Donald Trump is the Black Swan the CCP never saw coming. The Wuhan Virus is the killer app that will end Xi Jinpig dictatorship. The CCP is running out of cash, the national security law for HK is a cover for a money run on HK banks. HK is sitting on $1 trillion in USD capital assets with another $5 trillion offshore.
Hong Kong was the most elaborate money laundering scam the CCP ever pulled on the West. It worked for 23 years until Trump pulled the plug last month. More to come.
Why not bet on it in some way? Put one's money where one's mouth is...that s always the real test.
I shared this with my dad. He’s doing something. What I do not know. Not old enough to have a trading account, old enough with a lot of free time to do research.
Is it just me or somebody is talking like Kyle Bass of Hyman Capital who made a massive short bet on RMB in 2016 not touting a massive short on HKD de-pegging? lol.
There’s lot of claims here. Though for the first one, Trump is prob the black swan that nobody saw it coming, not just CCP
Amazon has just asked their employees to delete Tik Tok from phones that access email: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-10/amazon-tells-employees-to-delete-tiktok-from-mobile-devices
They are a pragmatic bunch over there, so there must have been something they found. It’s certainly a vector for shenanigans (closed source, Chinese parent company that ultimately must acquiesce to BJ...)
I think we will see the app blocked in the US. This will be the first ban on a Chinese info-tech product in the US but not the last. It will set a precedent. Thing is, China has already banned most US internet services, so what’s their play?
There goes any hope of BABA reaching AMZN in the near future.
Most thought-provoking piece of the week: “Is Taiwan the Next Hong Kong?” https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/east-asia/2020-07-08/taiwan-next-hong-kong How likely is the outcome that Green and Medeiros imagine?
The piece gets me thinking about 1968 (once again, this year): In 1968, the Soviets invaded a liberalizing Czechoslovakia. Historians now suggest the Soviet invasion might have been contingent on American carnage at home; domestic turmoil rendered the US unable to mount punishing retaliatory action. “In August 1968, the contentious Chicago Democratic Convention sparked serious civil unrest in Chicago at the very moment of the Warsaw Pact invasion,” writes Jeremy Suri.
This episode from 1968 suggests two reasons to be wary re: US-China today. (1) China will seek to take advantage of American domestic chaos and see it as a “window of strategic opportunity,” much as they viewed 9/11. (2) PLAN/PLAAF exercises around Taiwan are on the rise this year. Is Hong Kong the precursor or culmination of an emboldened China’s foreign policy in 2020?
A perennial debate amongst China watchers is whether China acts aggressively abroad out of internal insecurity or conversely out of internal strength. How would you answer this question, given recent events?
It is indeed strange, why China abandoned a successful foreign policy in favour of a confrontational one. Ideology may provide an answer.
From Deng Xiao Ping's "cat period" until 2013, pragmatism overruled ideology.
Right after Lehman it became consensus, that China must differentiate itself in many aspects and, broadly speaking, put ideology ahead of pragmatism.
So in 2013 previous principle was reversed, Maoist "struggle" became an overarching term, and that includes foreign policy and related activity.
Here I become a bit speculative. In spite of (at that time vice president) Xi Jin Ping's claim in 2011, that China will never export revolution, fundamental realisation seems to be, that socialism can only work if it is global (a Leon Trotsky postulate), which implies the need to stand up for proletarians everywhere and to support their "struggle".
Why: Socialism is a road to communism. Communism is also defined by absence of traditional government, that by default must include absence of traditional world order. If you are the only country without government, then you must fail.
So I speculate, that at least exporting "struggle" has become a foreign policy task. Hence aggression, to confront the class enemy.
If one looks the current Chinese governance/economic system objectively, it has very little to do with traditional socialism or communism (defined by Max, Lennon and Mao). Instead, it is a non-democratic Voting single party state capitalism, with very little social safety net (health care, education, pension) vs. today’s European socialism or traditional communism. In terms of State Owned Enterprise as % of GDP, it’s not that different from countries like France (~50% I believe). So in some way, it’s economic system is not so different from public sector dominated European countries, and governance ideology is Much closer to Singapore and Russia. In my view, its domestic and global political behavior has a lot to do with internal issues that impact the Gov. ruling legitimacy, e.g. corruption level, economic well-being for the mass population, nationalists sentiment of domestic mass population (TW, HK, XJ, Tibet all falls in here), rather than any global ambition.
Hello friends.
Could I please get some suggestions on where I can go to learn more about how China’s civil government works, particularly in how it taxes Chinese citizens and its social programs, etc.
I’ve come to realize that I’m very ignorant in how the average Chinese person pays and gets benefits from their government. Much in the way that I pay taxes in America for social security, Medicare, state and local taxes, pay my 401k and IRA, rent/mortgage, etc.
Despite studying China for much of my young life, there are many things I still don’t know about how average Chinese people deal with this kind of stuff. And honestly, I don’t understand at all how general internal Chinese bureaucracy and laws work.
I feel like this will be very important to know in helping me refine my opinions when talking to my peers about China.
Thanks!
There's a Wikipedia article on taxation in China, with references. Not sure how up to date it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_China#Individual_income_tax
https://ash.harvard.edu/publications/understanding-ccp-resilience-surveying-chinese-public-opinion-through-time?admin_panel=1&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosworld&stream=world
How might one Interpret this? And the one in Germany re US vs China. Both surprising given year to date newsflow in global mainstream media.
I noticed that their data goes to 2016 only. And the report has just been published! I found that a bit puzzling. And I wonder if perceptions have changed since. Frankly, I was a bit frustrated to see the period covered by their polling. Am I missing something re this report?
If they make it an ongoing report, it d be helpful over time indeed. Hopefully they ll have independent funding to keep it going.
The Harvard research seems correct to me.
The perception of government in China has vastly improved, because the improvements are real. It feels more orderly, clear-cut, rule-based and with equal, fair treatment. Compared to 10 years ago, change for the better is evident. The whole apparatus works much more professionally.
It comes at a price of more control, less individual anonymity, even previously unheard of tax compliance and more ideological education through the media and the internet. So it is not without shortcomings.
Happily, COVID-19 rendered most facial recognition obsolete.
Haha. Great point re facial recognition.
Good am from the East Coast of U.S. Please, does anyone have insight into how the average Chinese person is viewing the West, and the U.S. E.U. in particular these days? I have gotten the sense form this forum, that the PRC's tight controls of the messaging on almost all platforms available to the Chinese people promotes anti-west propaganda, and this is being echoed by the "woman-on-the-street." Just wondering if COVID has had an impact in altering the perceptions of the average Chinese person. ty.
It's difficult to generalize about "the average Chinese person", because China is a large and diverse country, and there is no way to do a useful poll because people know that they cannot speak freely in the current political climate.
I think it's interesting to look at children to try get an unfiltered sense of where things are at. I live in a tier one city and can say that a year or two ago kids on the street would call me 老外 or 外国人. Nowadays kids point and shout 美国人. It's anecdotal, but to me their attitude comes across as more antagonistic than it did before. I feel like Americans specifically are being framed as the new Big Bad for kids.
Amongst adults, it's harder to get a read. There is definitely a (justified) belief that the west utterly failed with controlling corona. This isn't exactly translated as a negative view of other countries, though, it's more something that the state media is using to try bolster national pride, which helps to distract from the economic issues that are really what's worrying everyone.
Macro PM mentioned BLM protests, and I agree this was a popular conversation topic amongst "cosmopolitan" elites. The state media does a great job in using these sorts of events to portray all other countries of the world as violent, dangerous and racist. I'm not sure if the goal is to make people hate other countries, I think it's more just to keep them fearful and attached to the "safety" of the motherland. It also works as a "what about" technique to derail any questions the elites might have about domestic injustices.
I think at the end of the day most average Chinese people don't spend a lot of time thinking about the US or the EU at all. They are much more worried about the domestic economy, the cultural pressure to get married or have kids, the ever-rising housing prices, issues with hukou and school, all that sort of stuff. Foreigners just exist on the periphery as 黑手 or 外国朋友 depending on where the wind is blowing that day.
COVID, or the west’s failure to contain it, has reinforced the Chinese perception of themselves as the superior race. At their core the Chinese are racist. This racism was suppressed during the Republican era and the civil war period because they were weak and focused on fighting Japan and, later, the internal struggle. The Chinese lost a lot of face during this time. Now that they have guns and money, it’s payback time. The attitude of the Chinese government and Chinese companies is exactly the attitude of the 官員 toward the common man in imperial times, arrogant and condescending.
This is a blunt description, but it is largely true. 中华意识/华夷之辨 always has a strong racial/racist component in it, and it has been deeply ingrained in the default mode of thinking of every person born and raised in China who does not have access to an "alternative viewpoint" when they were young.
Took me quite some time to realize it and even more time for painful "detoxification."
The way Chinese society is traditionally organized (i.e., 各人自扫门前雪, 莫管他家瓦上霜) seems to justify that 中华意识 is actually the glue that sticks people together as a nation. Ironically, the West also appears to be going along with a similar trend in recent years, when people's consensus on individual rights and a liberal political process seems to have been replaced by hashtags, labels, bitter crusades, and the "cancel culture."
thanks Qingtian. it is an interesting comparison, I agree-- the fragmentation and divisiveness of our domestic politics is driven by the never-ending power struggle between the monied and educated elite read: predominately older, white males and their reactions to what they see as a loss of the "American Culture" but only as it pertains to them and through their eyes.
I believe it is well-known that the issue with the right is they see "American Culture" as something predetermined and immutable. Whereas, in reality, "American Culture" itself is a product of constant social change and disruptive innovation (e.g., the United States' founding was a direct consequence of the rebellion and sedition against King George III).
The issue with the left, on the other hand, is that they overlook the tremendous time and effort it takes for most change to occur to achieve the social condition they prefer—provided that such a social condition can be maintained over time (i.e., it becomes part of future's "American Culture"), a precondition they often fail to take into account.
But the toxicity we see today appears to go beyond the traditional left-right dichotomy, and there could be many complex reasons behind it. One possible factor I can think of is information overload resulting from technological advances, which has dramatically exaggerated people's expectations as well as fears.
"The issue with the left, on the other hand, is that they overlook the tremendous time and effort it takes for most change to occur to achieve the social condition they prefer" well said.
On the "right" yes, the predominate "current" overt cultural desire of both the monied elites and the "base" seems to be a freezing of a culture in time.
In reality this "time" is nostalgic at best; it was not (and still is not) a reality for most of America--even in the decade or so of post-WWII white "suburban" America. One can argue, this "culture" was created through a deliberate hegemonic public-private propaganda campaign to move (mostly) white returning G.I.s back into the domestic workforce, displacing white women (and arguably) minorities back to the home through the retooling of the industrial enterprise from war-machine production, to domestic consumer goods.
However, the industrial transformation was not complete to consumer, but rather a massive expansion. The perpetual "wars" (Korea, Vietnam, various cold-war incursions, up through the current mid-east morass) kept the military-industrial complex humming along.
My digression is to say there is a HUGE financial incentive to prop-up a stable dominate "white" cultural narrative. I agree with your last paragraph--However, I would note that if one looks back 65 years (circa 1954) the human-rights' ideas driving the change in/for the Civil Rights Movement have made little substantive movement forward toward fruition.
I would add that the "toxicity" of the current "debate" is also a deliberate and highly technology-driven mis-information campaign(s) from (mostly) the "right." The "right" I would argue, is on the "losing side" of the current national cultural narrative shift. They also have, not surprisingly, the "most" to lose culturally and most importantly, financially.
Average Chinese sentiment is pretty negative on how the West has handled COVID, probably rightfully so. Chinese mass media has just played up how CCP is keeping them safe (eg, Beijing outbreak contained quickly and safely) while highlighting the US's rising case, death numbers, etc. Similarly there was a lot of focus on the BLM protests from the perspective that US police are brutal, US race relations are unfair, and portraying US looting and lawlessness.
Most "average" Chinese are pretty heavily influenced by the CCTV media bubble, so fairly nationalist, and see western criticisms as unfair/racism/jealousy over China's growth.
I think this trend has been ongoing in the last decade of growth and propaganda, and the COVID situation has accelerated this idea of western leadership decline (particularly the US) and effectiveness of the Chinese model.
If we supposed China takes a lead role in developing a successful vaccine, what would that look like going forward? Xi pledged to treat one as a "global public good" in May, two weeks after the ambassador to the EU initially declined to do so at that international teleconference. Would a credible claim to having invented a (major part of/breakthrough in) the vaccine be an effective way to wipe the slate clean? That would maybe be why China has been targeting vaccine research specifically for cyber-espionage, according to the FBI/DHS press release in May.
"Wipe the slate clean" from genocide? No, I don't think so.
Sorry, "nobody cares," "Muslims don't care" of "it's someone else's problem" isn't true and isn't going to cut it.
I mean, you already have two dozen-ish Muslim-majority states with leaders that have pretty much stated they don't care, unfortunately. I wouldn't expect it to do much by way of US public opinion, but particularly in the developing world it seems like they think a vaccine could be key to good relations. At the very least, it could "cancel out" some of negative sentiment against China for its role in letting the pandemic get to this point, perhaps.
Yes, the "pragmatists" who always have some great reason why we can never be decent to each other. The sooner we're done with their madness, the better.
Hot prediction: Vaccine distribution is accompanied by a ham-fisted propaganda campaign as to how humanity owes a tremendous debt to China. This, like with PPE diplomacy, heavily dilutes global gratitude.
Though, I'd probably say, the Chinese rolling out a vaccine would probably be a great excuse for "pragmatists" to try normalise relations.
As much as they say they'd treat it as a "global public good", I have a hard time seeing a world where the CCP is able to distribute vaccines globally in meaningful fashion while they've still got 1.5 billion arms to stick needles in back home.
And if they do send vaccines, who wants them? Certainly not any OECD (for the most part)
Also, can you imagine the resistance and vocal outrage by anti-vaxxers who dont even want the vaccines that their own country gives them. Yeesh
Also, Daniel, any vaccine against the Covid-19 is only likely to have a 40-50% effective rate no matter where it comes from. Anyone young and healthy can likely skip the vaccine.
It matters not, how much or how little effective a vaccine is, but to have a vaccine at all. It will enable re-opening of the world.
Quite the opposite. The lower the efficacy of the vaccine, the more people you’ll have to vaccinate in order to achieve herd immunity.
My point is more that "herd immunity" is being achieved without the vaccine. Based on some results that New York City released earlier, they figured that 21% of their population already had the virus. That was 1 1/2 months ago.
What kinds of actions/activism might have a chance of cancelling the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics?
Asking for a friend.
You could hold an alternate sporting event that highlights cooperation. Ask athletes and countries to participate on a voluntary basis. But we don't need another Berlin Olympics.
As a sporting event, we wouldn't need countries to boycott the Beijing event or send their top athletic talent. Just having people from different countries around the world attend would make a huge statement, an indelible stain on Beijing's shameful event, and a finger in the eye of Xi Jinping. It would be the "Human Rights Olympics."
You could also ask some portion of the Uyghur or Chinese expat community to host a protest event holding out the best of world civilization against the PRC's worst. That would be something.
I love this idea, and would totally support it (if someone else organizes it!)
By the way, this was tried before, in 1936.
A global "People's Olympiad" was organized in Spain for July 19-26, which would have ended 8 days before the Berlin Olympics. But the Spanish Civil War started on July 17, with Hitler's backing and support.
Would it be worth all the effort to have an alternative Olympiad in 2022? My feeling is that it would be safer to shut the whole thing down (even if there weren't a pandemic to worry about, which I expect there will be in early 2022).
Refusal of all athletes and teams to show up for them or train - sign a petition indicating that. Then nobody show up. They will lose so much face if no one shows up.
But it will be hard to pull off. But basically all the participants need to make their voices heard. Arise ye who wish not to be slaves!
China's soft power in Asia and Africa means that most countries will ignore this kind of boycott.
At this moment, I think nearly all Olympic teams in the world would vote to attend. They, and more importantly their sponsors, have a lot to lose.
There is one advantage the West has; the winter games are dominated by countries that would be more inclined to care about the situation in Xinjiang. If just the U.S., Canada, Norway, Sweden and Finland boycott, it'd be a much smaller event.
Any thoughts on what the authorities are trying to achieve by pumping up the stock-market given the last effort in 2015 ended in tears? Do they not learn?
They're not? They immediately walked back the comments, warning against market bubbles today and having the state pensions sell equities, clearly signaling they don't want to create a 2015.
That said, their goal is to create an SPX-like (or NASDAQ-like) capital market system that is stable, low volatility, invest-able with a good return profile for international and domestic investment.
The problem is it's easier said than done, and given the lack of liquidity and retail non-institutional dominance still of the domestic market, it's hard to micromanage like that. But as with all things in China, CCP wants to control not just the direction but the speed of change!
Thanks...normal 80-90% retail share has gone to 95% in recent days, so that is going to be a long slog.
They are trying to show that the China model still works - any problem they have - just throw money at it or pull a lever in the government to make a change. The Peoples Currency by Subacchi and Red Capitalism by Walter cover some of this. China does not want to show weakness and want to show the continued strength of their nation - by any means necessary.
What I having trouble grasping is why the PRC Seems to be fumbling everything on the foreign policy front right now. I know the virus is like 80 to 90% of that but Chinese elites behavior towards Australia, India, among others, seems tone deaf and foolish. I have always understood Chinese leadership to be foreign educated, fluent in English, etc, but then they do things like try to outlaw support for Hong Kong independence worldwide. Are you serious? I know that they have a domestic audience that is more important than the foreign one but one would think they could accomplish the things they want to accomplish without being so openly, brazenly misguided
Wait till the purging really gets started in Hong Kong....
That's speculation. Judging from history they will be sensible. The law also isn't retrospective.
Because the CCP needs an enemy to define itself against. And if the enemy is passive and 'not making an appearance', you poke it with a stick until you can say 'See how it roars, that's why us Chinese should protect our Maoist values and defend ourselves against western influence.' The west has slumbered despite prodding. Now it is starting to wake up to play the role that the CCP needs it to play
This article by Minxin Pei is illuminating in this regard. His main point is that diplomats have to please the Party rather than advice Beijing on the outside world.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/china-reputation-wolf-warrior-diplomacy-covid19-by-minxin-pei-2020-06
I am with you.
China has isolated itself. The only way to break the isolation seems to be to fix the relations with the US. Hence Wang Yi "Three Lists" plan to re-open talks with the US.
Trouble is, they don't have partners in Washington anymore, as we enter the presidential lame duck period with lots of campaigning based on a strong anti-China theme going on.
No-one would want to be seen shaking hands with Chinese officials.
Wang Yi's claim that "China will not and cannot become another America" clearly intends to appeal to those on the left, many of whom have long held the view that US foreign policies are based on illiberal hegemony and imperialist mentality.
However, in this case, it is delusional to take Wang's words seriously. Politically, China has mostly been left alone in its own way, as reflected by how the West has engaged with China in the past 30 years. So why a sudden rush of "imperialist impetus" now? Some may argue that this is because of Trump, but just turning around and taking a quick look at all other countries in the Five Eyes as well as at China's neighbors proves that such an argument is flawed.
The West is standing up to China because it is crucial for self-preservation. Those on the left need to be reminded that whatever rights they enjoy and whatever activism they preach and practice are, first and foremost, founded on the very fact that they live in a society with civil liberties. And those civil liberties are not to be taken for granted--something they are fully aware of when it comes to Trump, but is conveniently ignored elsewhere.
Well, there are a number of examples of all the things "China will not/never do/become", that China actually did and became.
"Politically, China has mostly been left alone in its own way, as reflected by how the West has engaged with China in the past 30 years." I have read this sentence several times and still don't get what it could possibly refer to.
Quite often there are unfounded, unprovable, blanket assertions, that are left standing, unchallenged, and therefore become fact.
Can you please elaborate, what are the specifics of the case you are making, while staying clear of common place generalisations?
Wang Yi's speech was a reference to the political system. Since you quoted him, I thought that you had read it already, but if you need some more context, here is a passage from Reuters:
> The two countries should not seek to change each other, said Wang. "China cannot and will not become another America," he said, adding that a socialist system was suited to China and the choice of its people.
To be clear, that sentence you alluded to is saying that China's political system has not fundamentally changed in the past 30 years. It is still in its top-down authoritarian form that lacks the legitimacy to rule, unlike one provided by an electoral mechanism. On the other hand, forcing a change has not been a prerequisite for the West to engage with China during the same period.
To challenge a perceived status quo, the burden of proof is usually on the challenger. If you have evidence that refutes the common understanding of China as a political entity that is vastly different from the US, please provide them here instead of merely offering a rebuttal of the "common place generalizations" type.
By the way, I assume you understand that not every comment is intended to make a case.
When the only other global power has vacated its role and has even become more antagonistic on international issues by veering back towards nativist zero-sum engagements with allies, it allows for new norms of diplomacy to fill growing voids. China has become more assertive because it can. That it is clumsy or discomforting to others may not be their primary concern. Just like economic, political and military advantages that the US or other nations may have afforded them privileges we take for granted even as they irked or angered many.
Well, I don't think the issue really is whether they can, since of course they can; they're a sovereign nation whose representatives can adopt whichever strategy they'd like. The question rather is *why* they're doing it, since all it seems to be doing is driving away EU and Asian countries who otherwise might be receptive to a more genial Chinese approach by contrast with the erratic and oft-adverserial Trump administration.
Embassies and diplomats who enrage or provoke powers whom you need to convince, not just intimidate, absolutely should be a concern to Beijing, but it seems like they're not, which is what has a lot of us wondering, it seems. Where's the margin in your French embassy broadcasting lies about how France is deliberately killing off its old folks? Even if you're looking to project a more vigorous, unapologetic diplomatic front that does nothing for you since it has absolutely nothing to do with China.
It certainly seems counterproductive in many instances. The art of international diplomacy is taking a turn for the worse in many capitals. That said, countries commenting on matters where they have little or no skin in is hardly a rarity even if ill-informed, insensitive or biased. We just are used to certain countries/leaders doing it but not so much China, until recently. Perhaps it is an effort to project a view that the international community shouldn't become too accustomed to China staying in it's 'place'.
The Rise of Great Powers is a mandatory watch for all CPC officials. It is produced by Chinese propoganda outlet and asserts , among other things, that the Soviet Union Because of Gorbachevs 'opening up'
HK can never be free or remain 'open' like it was...Xi doesnt want to be a Gorbachev presiding over the collapse of the CPC
Thats your answer.
A full analysis of China's foreign policy direction and recent missteps is very complex, and there's a lot of contributing factors to why they are seemingly so out of touch now.
A lot of the current set of responses are a result of ongoing foreign strength projection that started over the last 5ish years after Xi's power consolidation. Launching Wolf Warrior diplomacy, etc. Chinese politics are pretty slow moving and once some of these trends got started, it is hard to reverse course even though these tools are very ill-suited to 2020's events. COVID, HK, and higher attention on China issues accelerated a lot of the pressure points of their foreign policy, and since their response has been to stay the course with strength projection, it can look comically out of touch from the outside.
Furthermore to your question specifically, while a lot of the Chinese leadership are fairly well educated, the rise and fall of cliques and power groups in the government matters a lot. Xi himself is a strongman leader from the Provincial governance side of the party, and has elevated a lot of similarly strong-handed members from the provinces and military. The "reformist" technocratic cliques within the party haven't actually been that ascendant not vocal in setting some of these more aggressive policies. There are exceptions but I'm generalizing for sake of space.
why is outlawing hk independence a surprise to you? One country, two systems, Basic Law, how much independence got traction with enough to worry about over the years, especially the last...
Xi is scared, sees nothing to lose, and is going for broke. Or he's quite deluded, take your pick. The backlash against the PRC is building rapidly and will make post-Tiananmen look like the proverbial dinner party.
Hes going for broke because he doesnt want to be Gorbachev and see the collapse of his country.
I very much buy the argument that much of it is reactionary defensiveness. Both with India and Australia, the CCP was extremely keen on making sure it was not perceived as giving an opening to being kicked when it's down, so to speak, even at the cost of important relationships. India in particular I think there's really strog motivation to make sure New Delhi knows which of the two is the rising great power, and which of the two is just a regional power. China has to be more delicate with the United States (not that things aren't still really ugly) and may be spending all its political capital vis-à-vis hawks/nationalists domestically on not going pedal to the metal against the US right now.
It really does seem as though the #1 priority is posturing for domestic leadership to ensure promotions. And after what happened with Zhao Lijian, who can blame them? The PRC leadership has sent clear signals on what it wants to see. Too bad for them that it's a disaster from a diplomatic standpoint, of course, but the signals are there.
I think they sense that this is THEIR moment and it is time to assert influence. I am surprised that Chinese diplomats are openly threatening European governments with "consequences" if they resist Huawei. By the way, the fact that the Chinese government is openly pushing Huawei indicates that the government sees it as a strategic asset. They are not doing it to create jobs back in Shenzhen. Every time a Chinese diplomat makes a public statement about Huawei, it undercuts the company's claims that it is completely independent.
How do China/Hong Kong respond to social media apps declining to reply to government inquiries?
Were there so many inquiries to date that this is an issue?
I would guess, the vast majority of enquiries are same as everywhere else: Common crime, e.g. fraud, theft, blackmail, etc., non-political.
Don't forget, there are endless numbers of Chinese gangs operating in all Asian countries, defrauding mostly fellow Chinese, be it mainland, Hong Kong, Singapore or other overseas Chinese in Philippines, Indonesia, etc.
Blanket non-cooperation means rising above the law and offering safe haven to this and other riff-raff. FB and others need to be more specific what they refuse and what they accept.
However, they may no longer be allowed to operate in HK.
Any thoughts here about US universities using Zoom and PRC and Hong Kong students? A scenario: a PRC or HK student attending class remotely in PRC or HK and a forbidden topic comes up, say a bio class and genome sequencing ethics and PRC security policies comes up. Would the student be at risk if they were to speak up? Is there anything a university should do to anticipate such a risk? Is there any alternative?
I also wondered this. I suppose one alternative is to use other video conference platforms like BlueJeans that don't have servers in China and aren't subject to its laws.
BlueJeans an interesting idea. I’m curious if US universities are prepared if, say, a PRC or HK based remote learning Harvard or UC student were to be arrested for something said over Zoom while in class. It seems to me that some China studies faculty is concerned about this, but not widely thought about in admin, faculty or students. I suppose HK institutions and NYU Shanghai or Duke Kunshan must be thinking
It was not common for Hong Kong people to speak out against the Communist Party before, because that's simply not done in professional circles, and we all knew that someone could someday be punished for it.
But now the day has officially come, and it's just such a flipping shame that we were too scared to speak clearly before when it was still legal.
And everyone wanted to keep professional options open. Speaking out against the Party could bar you from entering Mainland China. It's understandable, but I was always surprised by how little people were willing to care about all this, until 1 year ago.
Yes, they would be at risk if they speak up. This is the insidious nature of communism. You put certain organizations in place or istitutions in place - it cause self censorship no matter where you are. If you do speak up, your class mates 'are watching you'
I dont really see an alternative. Unless they have a plan to not go back to China and get citizenship somewhere else
I think this is why it is important for western countries to encourage immigration from Hong Kong and other parts of China. Right now a lot of people feel like they can't speak out because it may affect their future or their family's future. But if they can see a future for themselves where they can build a good life outside the reach of the party, then i think they might feel more empowered to be critical of it. And criticism from ordinary people in the diaspora is surely going to reach the domestic 老百姓 more effectively than anything foreign allies might say.
I agree in part, but we are not certain yet how many will want to leave. The lure of Chinese culture is very powerful and most Chinese would rather live inside China than out. 老中寧願和自己人一起生活，不要跟外國人在一起。Also, the diaspora, while a source of money and knowledge, does not have a good track record of influencing internal politics. Where are the protesters of 天安門事件now? They are in the US with advanced degrees and comfortable lives.
Predict the future....where is China in 1 year from now? Less hated internationally, sanctions, a warming of relations, Taiwan invasion...is trump in office? If Biden, then what happens to US - China rels?
I would love to hear what people think
Reacting to the news that a Chinese-born lawmaker in New Zealand won't run again because of concerns over China's influence, what would it take to create a global backlash against Xi Jinping? What mechanisms or tactics would work?
I feel like we are seeing the closest to a global backlash yet. When Those reports came out a month or so a go about BJ believing the backlash about China / COVID19 would be serious As Tiannanmen, I was a little incredulous.
US putting sanctions on officials with ties to Xinjiang crackdown and the HK HR act and the related one about XJ show america leading the charge.
The unravelling and evemtual renaming of Confucius institutes is a big step that is anti China. People basicallly stood up, declared their opposition to the Kongzi Xueyuan and in weakness the Chinese acquiesced by either leaving that campus and eventually renaming themselves.
Britain and other countries opening their doors to HK freedom fighters is big too. Can anyone provide more examples...
Responding to Daniel, there are lots of other examples. Australia is outraged that a lawmaker took money from Beijing-related interests. India kicked TikTok and other Chinese apps out of the country at the same time it was fighting Chinese troops along the border. Other countries are waking up to the damage inflicted by the BRI. Sri Lanka lost control of a harbor. Either Peru or Bolivia (I forget which) is saddled with a big Chinese-built dam that was located too close to volcanoes and can't be operated, etc. How can all this information be collected and turned into more than the sum of the parts?
To be fair, the momentum against Confucius Institutes has been building for some time now, and quite rightly so. COVID may have pushed it along a bit, but I wouldn't call that movement a product of COVID.
Good point. I was trying to give a general account of some things that happened / ing that in the last 5 years or so that show a global backlash is mounting regardless of the start date.
Ah, I see! You're quite right.