The China Thread

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't think it's rational or whether he cares or not. I think on the global system at the minute - and I can't remember who said this - but Russia basically is an anarchist. They don't want a global system that constrains them or the individuals who have captured the state. I think China has an alternative global rules based system in mind..

Don't think I agree with either of those.
Putin's Russia is not anarchistic - it just seems that way because they are fighting against a hegmonic world system that consigns them to a position of relative inferiority.  The fact that they are in that position because on objective measures of state power - economic and technological - they are inferior is no consolation to them.  They would be perfectly happy with a world system with rules - even constraining rules - if it put them in position of equality with the great powers (i.e the US and China now).  Their goal is not freedom from constraint but respect.

China OTOH is essentially content with a world system that has underwritten their striking rise to superpower status, but wants to make some amendments to tone down or suppress the aspects it doesn't like - namely the core value of universal human rights - and linked with that - the notion that there is no absolute distinction between domestic and foreign concerns.

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/22/uk-mps-declare-china-is-committing-genocide-against-uyghurs-in-xinjiang

UK MPs declare China is committing genocide against Uyghurs in Xinjiang

British MPs voted to declare that China is committing genocide against the Uyghur people in Xinjiang province.

The motion passed on Thursday does not compel the government to act but is likely to mark a further decline in relations with China.

Nigel Adams, the Asia minister, admitted there was credible evidence of widespread use of forced labour, internment camps, and the targeting of ethnic groups. The actions amounted to clear and systematic abuse of human rights, but he said the UK's longstanding position was that determining genocide is for "competent national and international courts".

The vote, part of a growing movement in western democracies, was hailed by the chair of the US Senate foreign relations committee, Bob Menendez, who said the UK parliament had "shone a light on the egregious abuses the Chinese state commits against the Uyghur people. The free world must be united in holding the Chinese government to account for these abuses."

Senator Mario Rubio, the vice-chair of the US Senate select committee on intelligence, said: "One by one, democratic nations are calling out the Chinese government persecution of the Uyghur people We cannot stand idly by while these horrific abuses continue."

Nusrat Ghani, the author of the motion and a former Conservative minister, said: "The work does not stop here. We cannot continue business as usual with China while these atrocities continue. The government must now act urgently to ensure our supply chains are not tainted by goods made with Uyghur forced labour."

Adams turned down an invitation from his backbenchers to give formal government evidence to the Uyghur tribunal being led by Sir Geoffrey Nice, but said he had met the lawyer this week.

He said the government had sent a powerful message in March by sanctioning four senior Chinese officials involved in the abuses in Xinjiang province.

The shadow Foreign Office minister Stephen Kinnock said ministers needed to go further by widening the pool of Chinese officials sanctioned, ending further formal economic consultations with China, and advocating for the UN general assembly to request an advisory opinion from the international court of justice on the question of genocide.

China recently sanctioned 10 UK individuals and entities, including five MPs, as a response to the UK sanctions. Tim Loughton, one of the five MPs, told the Chinese embassy he would not be cowed and had only been re-energised by the sanctions.

The Foreign Office is caught in a growing dilemma as it seeks to compartmentalise its disagreements over the political and authoritarian direction of China from its efforts to persuade the country on its need to reduce its carbon emissions.

The Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesperson, Layla Moran, has called on the government to commit to a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Winter Olympics.

[The Brain]

What's the deal with parliaments in different countries voting on whether or not something is genocide?

[DGuller]

It makes the victims feel better.

[Valmy]

What's the deal with parliaments in different countries voting on whether or not something is genocide?

Aren't there supposed to be certain treaty obligations? I think there is some UN treaty requiring a country do certain things when a genocide is going on...

Write a sternly worded letter or something.

[Tonitrus]

I am sure China would veto said letter.

[Barrister]

What's the deal with parliaments in different countries voting on whether or not something is genocide?

Well it must have some effect because it really pisses the Chinese off when other countries do it.

[Jacob]

What's the deal with parliaments in different countries voting on whether or not something is genocide?

They investigate the evidence they have and, upon reflection, declare that yes in this case they consider it genocide. This provides some impetus for further action (slowly, generally, since it's foreign policy), and triggers some sanctions of various sorts.

Which part is confusing to you?

[The Brain]

What's the deal with parliaments in different countries voting on whether or not something is genocide?

They investigate the evidence they have and, upon reflection, declare that yes in this case they consider it genocide. This provides some impetus for further action (slowly, generally, since it's foreign policy), and triggers some sanctions of various sorts.

Which part is confusing to you?

The state does things all the time without parliament voting on it. Just seems weird to me to decide genocide in parliament, for several reasons. Making it a political decision sends the signal that genocide is just a matter of perspective.

[Sheilbh]

Don't think I agree with either of those.
Putin's Russia is not anarchistic - it just seems that way because they are fighting against a hegmonic world system that consigns them to a position of relative inferiority.  The fact that they are in that position because on objective measures of state power - economic and technological - they are inferior is no consolation to them.  They would be perfectly happy with a world system with rules - even constraining rules - if it put them in position of equality with the great powers (i.e the US and China now).  Their goal is not freedom from constraint but respect.

Maybe - the thing that I find very striking about Russia is the extent to which it frames its actions in the language and concepts of the Western rules. So with their interventions in Syria and Libya, or the invasion of Ukraine and Georgia, the reasoning the Russian state offers for that is typically right to protect language. It is the same language that the Western powers used to justify intervening in Kosovo, or Iraq or Libya.

Similarly one of the reasons I think for the 2016 election meddling was possibly that it was 20 years on from Americans meddling in Russian elections while proclaiming how vital elections were.

And I think that's the point I always get with Russia is they don't believe there is a rules-based system. I think what they perceive is a hegemon exercising power - meddling in elections, intervening in domestic conflicts - in the name of human rights or whatever, but always in their interests. So I think in the Russian view the rules are hypocrisy used selectively to cover and justify the actions of the hegemon, so in Russia's response they own subvert and almost parody the "rules". I think Russia is less wanting respect than wanting to erode the perceived hypocrisy/moral grandstanding of rule-makers. I think it almost wants to expose the rules-lessness of the Western order and that at heart it's basically kind of Schmittian - the rules only apply to the West's enemies.

I think the one big exception is the striking degree that Russia is willing is using to use force in other countries to kill political opponents/exiles: the poisonings in the UK, the bomb in Czechia. There they just deny it.

China OTOH is essentially content with a world system that has underwritten their striking rise to superpower status, but wants to make some amendments to tone down or suppress the aspects it doesn't like - namely the core value of universal human rights - and linked with that - the notion that there is no absolute distinction between domestic and foreign concerns.

Isn't that a new world system/set of rules though?

And I think the last point on domestic/foreign concerns is only true to a point. I think we seen in China's behaviour towards countries that are aligned with it, or depend on it that China wants those countries to shut down domestic critics of China. This is something that you can see in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and in countries in South-East Asia.

[Tamas]

What's the deal with parliaments in different countries voting on whether or not something is genocide?

They investigate the evidence they have and, upon reflection, declare that yes in this case they consider it genocide. This provides some impetus for further action (slowly, generally, since it's foreign policy), and triggers some sanctions of various sorts.

Which part is confusing to you?

The state does things all the time without parliament voting on it. Just seems weird to me to decide genocide in parliament, for several reasons. Making it a political decision sends the signal that genocide is just a matter of perspective.

I think it is wonderful. It looks as something is being done without anything actually being done. It saves a lot of energy.

[garbon]

What's the deal with parliaments in different countries voting on whether or not something is genocide?

They investigate the evidence they have and, upon reflection, declare that yes in this case they consider it genocide. This provides some impetus for further action (slowly, generally, since it's foreign policy), and triggers some sanctions of various sorts.

Which part is confusing to you?

The state does things all the time without parliament voting on it. Just seems weird to me to decide genocide in parliament, for several reasons. Making it a political decision sends the signal that genocide is just a matter of perspective.

I think it is wonderful. It looks as something is being done without anything actually being done. It saves a lot of energy.

I think it is important as a step toward doing something. Makes it a bit harder to look go cozying up to China when your country says that China is committing genocide.

[Sheilbh]

I mean there is a question of what you can do when it's China not a small, pariah state. Especially as, from my understanding, a lot of the thinking by political scientists/academics in recent years has been broad-brush sanctions don't work - ones targetted to individuals have more impact (which is why states have gone down that route). The UK has sanctioned Chinese government figures and at least one company operating in Xinjiang.

But I think it's like the trade bill that's working through parliament and rebels keep trying to add an amendment on trade deals with countries that parliament or the courts (depending on which version of the amdendment you have) declare are committing genocide. The issue is the UK doesn't have a trade deal with China so it wouldn't actually make any difference.

On the other hand I think the Cameron-Osborne "Golden Century" approach with China is definitely dead.

[Jacob]

I think it is wonderful. It looks as something is being done without anything actually being done. It saves a lot of energy.

What do you think is the right course of action? What, in your eyes, would not just be a cynical but ultimately pointless gesture signifying nothing?

[Berkut]

I think Putin does care about Russia, at the very least Russia is his piggybank.  All his fortune won't be worth much if Russia goes tits up.  I think Russia is just a much more aggressive player than China.  China plays according to the strength of their position, while Russia plays according to the strength of their opponent's position.  It doesn't matter if you have a weak hand if your opponent isn't willing to call your bluff.

My point about Putin though is that if his *personal* position is in peril, he won't sacrifice it for Russia. He is like every other dictator in that sense - Russia is only useful to him in that it provides him with what he wants. That is dangerous, because it means that they don't really make a sober analysis about when to back down and take a "loss". You see this over and over and over in history. Dictators NEVER give up, because they know their personal power and status cannot survive a defeat, and they don't actually care about their country.a