The China Thread

[garbon]

On the one hand sure. Fuck Russia. Cheating arse holes.
But you do have to be fair to those Russian athletes who had nothing to do with this and let them compete.
If only the old Olympics could be possible in the modern day - anyone can show up and take part. Their country is a fun side note rather than a big deal.
Obviously in the modern world this would be a disaster that takes years to get through.

Let them compete but don't track to a country on medal table?

[Josquius]

Apparently China won the Olympics.

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4266780

Note they spelled Chinese Taipei wrong.

[garbon]

From bad faith, politically motivated prosecution to ridiculously petty social control measures.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/11/michael-spavor-verdict-canada-china-trial-court

Michael Spavor trial: China court sentences Canadian to 11 years for spying

Justin Trudeau has condemned as "absolutely unacceptable and unjust" China's jailing of Canadian entrepreneur Michael Spavor for 11 years on charges of spying.

Canada's prime minister said: "The verdict for Mr Spavor comes after more than two-and-a-half years of arbitrary detention, a lack of transparency in the legal process, and a trial that did not satisfy even the minimum standards required by international law."

The verdict, delivered by a court in Dandong on Wednesday morning, comes as Beijing steps up pressure ahead of a Canadian court ruling on whether to hand over Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou to face US criminal charges.

Spavor's arrest in 2018 came just days after Meng's arrest in Canada in connection with possible violations of trade sanctions on Iran, drawing accusations by critics of "hostage diplomacy".

Spavor, and fellow Canadian Michael Kovrig, have spent 975 days in detention, and were tried separately in secret earlier this year. In March China's state media tabloid, the Global Times, said Spavor – who lived near the North Korean border and arranged cultural exchanges – was accused of supplying intelligence to Kovrig, a former diplomat turned analyst for the International Crisis Group. Canadian authorities have said the charges are baseless.

On Wednesday, the court in Dandong announced Spavor had been found guilty of spying and illegally providing state secrets to other countries. He was sentenced to 11 years in jail, confiscation of personal property, and fined 50,000 yuan ($7,715), according to a statement by the Liaoning Dandong intermediate people's court.

Canadian ambassador Dominic Barton said he was disappointed with the long sentence. "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this [decision] which was rendered without due process or transparency."

Barton said he was able to have a consular visit with Spavor, who thanked his supporters and said he was in good spirits but wanted to get home.

The court had also ordered Spavor be deported but it was not clear when this would occur. Barton told the media they had interpreted the judgment to mean deportation after the sentence, but "hopefully there is a way for him to get home a little earlier".

Beijing-based lawyer Mo Shaoping told Reuters that deportation generally takes place after the person has finished serving the sentence but may happen earlier for special cases.

Margaret McCuaig-Johnston, a senior fellow at the University of Ottawa's graduate school of public and international affairs, said there was precedent in a similar 2014 case, in which Canadian couple Kevin and Julia Garratt were detained, charged and sentenced in China after Canada extradited Su Bin, a suspected spy, to the US. They were released and deported in 2017 soon after Su cut a deal in the US.

"[Spavor's case] may be a signal that the Chinese are willing to deport him at whatever time the Canadian government creates the right conditions for him to leave – in other words Meng being released to return to China," she said.

Spavor has two weeks to appeal against the ruling, but China's notoriously opaque justice system rarely grants appeals and routinely posts conviction rates of more than 99.9%.

...

Also as mentioned in hyperlink in that article, separately China also upgraded prison term for a Canadian citizen on drug charge to death sentence as conclusion to his appeal.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/11/china-to-ban-karaoke-songs-with-content-that-endangers-national-unity

China to ban karaoke songs with 'illegal content' that endangers national unity

China will establish a blacklist of karaoke songs to ban those containing "illegal content" from karaoke venues across the country starting from 1 October, according to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism.

The ministry said banned content would include that which endangers national unity, sovereignty or territorial integrity, violates state religious policies by propagating cults or superstitions, or which encourages illegal activities such as gambling and drugs.

Content providers to karaoke venues will be responsible for auditing the songs, the ministry said on its website on Tuesday, adding that China has nearly 50,000 entertainment outlets with a basic music library of more than 100,000 songs, making it difficult for venue operators to identify illegal tracks.

The ministry said it encouraged content providers to supply "healthy and uplifting" music to these venues.

China heavily regulates and scrubs content that includes violence, pornography, or politically sensitive commentary from social media and websites and has in recent months punished livestreaming to video platforms for hosting content it deems "low taste".

[grumbler]

ore signs that foreigners need to GTFO of China, and stay out.  There are non-corrupt countries where they can visit or work.

[DGuller]

My former employer had an office in China where they outsourced some of analytics.  I heard that they're closing it, and the rumors are that political risk was the reason.

[Jacob]

Personally I would not do business in China.

Might go to visit family, though

[DGuller]

Honestly, I thought even twenty years ago that doing business in China was just blind short-sighted greed.  I think China has always viewed foreign businessmen as useful idiots.  Their belligerent behavior in recent times may have killed the goose that was quietly laying them golden eggs all this time.

[The Minsky Moment]

I followed a China law blog for some time  - it really got into the details of doing business in China.  For many years, China was steadily improving as a viable place to do business, a trend that has recently gone into sharp reverse.

It's silly to say that the US (or any other nation) should simply not do business; the scale of existing business is so massive that it isn't feasible.  OTOH there are going to be hard decisions that will have to made about the nature and level of commercial engagement, especially in areas like opening and maintaining overseas offices, posting expatriate personnel, and listing on Chinese exchanges. 

[Jacob]

Honestly, I thought even twenty years ago that doing business in China was just blind short-sighted greed.  I think China has always viewed foreign businessmen as useful idiots.  Their belligerent behavior in recent times may have killed the goose that was quietly laying them golden eggs all this time.

I think this is reductive. There was a genuine opportunity for things to turn out differently than they did. It was not a foregone conclusion that Chinese leadership would evolve as it did and make the decisions they did.

China is not a monolith - in spite of central leadership's efforts to make it seem as such.

[DGuller]

Honestly, I thought even twenty years ago that doing business in China was just blind short-sighted greed.  I think China has always viewed foreign businessmen as useful idiots.  Their belligerent behavior in recent times may have killed the goose that was quietly laying them golden eggs all this time.

I think this is reductive. There was a genuine opportunity for things to turn out differently than they did. It was not a foregone conclusion that Chinese leadership would evolve as it did and make the decisions they did.

China is not a monolith - in spite of central leadership's efforts to make it seem as such.

I was thinking of it in those terms at the time, not retroactively.  The issues with intellectual property were always there even before China's turn towards open belligerence.  In a modern economy, doing business with someone who won't respect your intellectual property and can't be compelled to is like having a gun store sell an arsenal to a gang of robbers.  It may be a very lucrative transaction initially, but it may wind up backfiring on you rather quickly.

[Sheilbh]

I think this is reductive. There was a genuine opportunity for things to turn out differently than they did. It was not a foregone conclusion that Chinese leadership would evolve as it did and make the decisions they did.

China is not a monolith - in spite of central leadership's efforts to make it seem as such.

I totally - agree.

The slight quibble I would have is that I do think ideology matters with China (I do actually think they're communists for example) and I wonder if people failed to join the dots until it became really obvious, perhaps because they were naive, or didn't believe in ideology, or didn't believe in politics v economics. Because it seems to me - and this may just be retrospect - that after Tiananmen it was clear that China as party-state was not going to loosen control by the party or brook challenges to that control. At the same time they were obviously encouraging a breakneck development on capitalist lines and the emergence of foreign businesses operating in China and also enormous Chinese companies.

I don't know if this is retrospective but it feels like part of what is happening is a re-assertion of party-state control of the economy. The foreign companies is a small-ish part of that compared to the way China is currently disciplining/subordinating the Chinese tech sector. And I wonder if people should have made that connection sooner - and certainly feel that it was probably likely once it became clear that (I don't know what Xi stood for at the time) Bo was one of the leading candidates. It's been clear for at least a decade that was the direction of travel but seems to be continuously re-discovered.

As I say it might be hindsight but it feels like there was a lot of handwaving as explanation from a really strong example of the party showing its control over social and political matters, but liberalising on economics. And maybe it was just sort of 90s/post-cold war hubris that the economy would drive or at least overpower political decisions; so not that China would become some western style democracy but that it would probably become a giant red Singapore. There were other failures of analysis on those lines and I think there's an argument that part of what's happening globally right now is the return of the politics - or the return of the primacy of politics over economics - and that's actually only going to intensify as we move to net zero (which is going to be a Chinese-led project).

[Josquius]

The slight quibble I would have is that I do think ideology matters with China (I do actually think they're communists for example)

Statists 100%.
But communists?
Fascist is closer to what they've become.

[Valmy]

And maybe it was just sort of 90s/post-cold war hubris that the economy would drive or at least overpower political decisions; so not that China would become some western style democracy but that it would probably become a giant red Singapore. There were other failures of analysis on those lines and I think there's an argument that part of what's happening globally right now is the return of the politics - or the return of the primacy of politics over economics - and that's actually only going to intensify as we move to net zero (which is going to be a Chinese-led project).

This was absolutely me at the time. I thought a powerful Chinese Capitalist Class would ensure that the business of China would become business and even lead to some liberalism. But obviously I was wrong.

[Valmy]

The slight quibble I would have is that I do think ideology matters with China (I do actually think they're communists for example)

Statists 100%.
But communists?
Fascist is closer to what they've become.

I mean they are not proponents of a stateless society without private property but they do like the dictatorship of the proletariat party. Speak loudly and carry a big people's stick.

[Sheilbh]

Statists 100%.
But communists?
Fascist is closer to what they've become.

I disagree I think the ideology has developed and will continue to develop.

But I think it is fundamentally communist - especially the idea of a party state maintaining control while the economy develops. It's - to nick a phrase I quite like - possibly just a long NEP - it may even last a century or two.

Capitalists are allowed to do what they want in most of the economy but the core bits are retained by the state, political power is not shared with anyone (especially not capitalists who are the most dangerous social class) and the state can and will crackdown when it thinks there is a political or social need to do so.

It could fall apart if the party state is internally divided or becomes corrupted by capitalism (and I think that's where the Xi/Bo punishiment of corruption comes in) and I think both of those are probably quite real risks. And this doesn't mean it eventually transitions to communism, but I think there is an argument for it - in the context of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Deng - being ideologically motivated and taking that ideology seriously. Which is why they were never going to let untrammeled freedom for capitalism if it started to affect core parts of the economy or would cause a social/political challenge.