The China Thread

[viper37]

and that's why the right to self-determinations matters for all nations.

I would say human rights matters. Self-determination is exactly the justification for these kinds of atrocities. Got to get the right sorts of people on that land so it can "self determine" the correct fashion.

That's why the Chinese are transferring Uighurs to other parts of China and settling Hans in the province, to make sure that point is moot in the times that come.

[Valmy]

and that's why the right to self-determinations matters for all nations.

I would say human rights matters. Self-determination is exactly the justification for these kinds of atrocities. Got to get the right sorts of people on that land so it can "self determine" the correct fashion.

That's why the Chinese are transferring Uighurs to other parts of China and settling Hans in the province, to make sure that point is moot in the times that come.

Exactly. Old Soviet trick.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

and that's why the right to self-determinations matters for all nations.

I would say human rights matters. Self-determination is exactly the justification for these kinds of atrocities. Got to get the right sorts of people on that land so it can "self determine" the correct fashion.

That's why the Chinese are transferring Uighurs to other parts of China and settling Hans in the province, to make sure that point is moot in the times that come.

Exactly. Old Soviet trick.

which is of course the exact opposite of self-determination. But you know that of course.

[Valmy]

which is of course the exact opposite of self-determination. But you know that of course.

What I know is what I said. Individual rights matter. Once you start getting into collective rights based on identity politics all kinds of shenanigans result. You might argue they are not doing identity politics right but unfortunately the logic of this political principal leads to things like this.

[Sheilbh]

So apparently Xi's CCP has just announced that the Cultural Revolution was a positive evolution in Chinese history.

Just fucking stellar.

So I've been reading Julia Lovell's really good Maoism: A Global History - and it makes me slightly wonder if this is slightly about foreign policy?

She mentioned in one section that the "China Dream" talks about how China has a tradition of cherishing peace and harmony and that China never seeks to pillage others or establish spheres of influence (unlike the West). The official position when researching another book was basically that China was more or less totally isolated and focusing on rebuilding from 1949-76. Obviously in that time - especially in the 60s - Chinese foreign policy was actually hyperactive. They were competing with the Soviets for leadership of the world revolution, they were supporting revolutionary groups across but especially Africa (by arms or cash or training or just statements). China wasn't the only one but she notes it may have been the period of peak Chinese soft power in the modern era (think of all those kids in Europe declaring themselves Maoist) - but it's disowned because it doesn't fit with the Chinese Dream and it's associated with the Cultural Revolution.

Now obviously I don't think they're about to start funding revolutionaries around the world - just like they're not about to launch a new Cultural Revolution. But I wonder if part of what's intended by the leadership with this shift is China's considering challenging global leadership again and is possibly slightly shifting from just cherishing peace and harmony?

[Josquius]

Shows complete ignorance of broader Chinese history too. Chinese history is mega expansionist. Just look at the old dynasties compared to today.
It's sad to think of all the lost people groups trampled beneath generic hanisation.

The debt trap stuff they're doing is definitely aimed at building an empire. It annoys me to no end when you see people pull the whole "unlike the nasty Europeans China doesn't make an empire it just invests". When you just know if doing what China is doing today was an option with pliable local rulers subscribing to global economic rules  and there was no threat of other powers competing, then the victorian age European empires would have much rather gone this way.

[Jacob]

China is absolutely an imperialist power. It was in the past, and it is today. It had a period where it was victimized by other imperial powers, but it's come back as imperialist as ever.

[Monoriu]

To be fair, the present Chinese borders roughly mirror the borders of the Qing dynasty, which was a Manchu dynasty, not Han Chinese.  The Qing dynasty was closely allied with the Mongols as well.  So a lot of the recent imperialist expansion was done by the Manchus and Mongols.  If you look at the borders of say Ming dynasty, it was a lots smaller than the Qings. 

[Jacob]

[Tonitrus]

If the videos that occasionally pop up into my Youtube feed are anything to analyze by...it seems like Sky News Australia is trying to out-do William Randolph Hearst.

[Habbaku]

India-China Map

[viper37]

Exactly. Old Soviet trick.

that's why people should seperate before that happens

[Valmy]

Exactly. Old Soviet trick.

that's why people should seperate before that happens

I believe Xinjiang has tried to do that multiple times in the past,

[Jacob]

Looks like the European pariliament is pushing off the ratification of the current EU-China trade deal. The reason is that China has levied sanctions against a number of EU parliamentarians who are involved with China, in retaliation for the EU levying sanctions against four Chinese officials behind the camps in Xinjiant.

It's been also noted how China was dragging their feet on the deal for seven years and then the moment Biden was elected they decided to push it forward.

[Sheilbh]

Interesting interview from New Zealand's foreign minister - as noted there's been a lot of areas where there's a bit of a question about New Zealand's slightly more reticent approach on China:

'A matter of time': New Zealand's foreign minister warns China 'storm' could be coming
In an interview with the Guardian, Nanaia Mahuta says exporters must diversify to protect themselves from a potential cooling of ties with Beijing
Tess McClure in Wellington
@tessairini
Mon 24 May 2021 21.00 BST

New Zealand could find itself at the heart of a "storm" of anger from China, foreign minister Nanaia Mahuta has warned, saying exporters needed to diversify to ensure they could survive deteriorating relations with Beijing.

Mahuta's comments come as the New Zealand government faces increasing pressure to take a firmer stance on human rights violations and crackdowns by China, putting the spotlight on the potential repercussions for countries who provoke Beijing's ire.

Neighbouring Australia is in a deepening trade war with China, which Mahuta likened to being at the centre of a storm – one which could easily engulf New Zealand.

"We cannot ignore, obviously, what's happening in Australia with their relationship with China. And if they are close to an eye of the storm or in the eye of the storm, we've got to legitimately ask ourselves – it may only be a matter of time before the storm gets closer to us," she told the Guardian.

It was one of the minister's more frank discussions of the vulnerability of New Zealand's trade dependency on China – and a clear directive to local exporters that they should be seeking to redistribute some of those eggs to baskets elsewhere.

"The signal I'm sending to exporters is that they need to think about diversification in this context – Covid-19, broadening relationships across our region, and the buffering aspects of if something significant happened with China. Would they be able to withstand the impact?" she asked. China accounts for more than $33bn of New Zealand's total trade, and nearly 30% of exports.

New Zealand is attempting to walk a difficult tightrope with China: maintaining a strong trade relationship, while still carving out space to criticise violations of human rights or international law. Over the past year, that position has become increasingly difficult to maintain.

The country is under pressure to take a stronger moral stance on human rights issues in and around China. Human rights groups have described mass human rights abuses in Xinjiang, including the incarceration of more than a million people in internment and re-education camps, forced labour, mass sterilisation of women, and restrictions on religion, culture and language, as cultural genocide.

The crackdown on pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong is ongoing: an operation rounding up of dozens of pro-democracy politicians and activists in March means many key voices of dissent are now in custody or prison. Earlier this month, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said New Zealand's differences with China were becoming "harder to reconcile".

New Zealand has issued statements expressing "grave concerns" about China's actions in both Xinjiang and Hong Kong, but those statements have tended to be softer than those of its longstanding allies in the Five Eyes network, Britain, the US, Canada and Australia.

New Zealand, along with Australia, welcomed coordinated sanctions announced by the UK, US, the EU and Canada over Uyghur abuses, but did not institute sanctions of their own. In May, New Zealand shied away from using the word "genocide" in a motion on Xinjiang debated and unanimously adopted by parliament – opting instead to use more general, watered-down language of "human rights abuses". Mahuta says New Zealand "didn't go to the degree of naming it is genocide because of the international legal threshold around that".

At the time, trade minister Damien O'Connor said that using the language of genocide would hurt New Zealand's trade relationship. "Clearly the Chinese government wouldn't like something like that ... I have no doubt it would have some impact [on trade]. That's hardly rocket science," O'Connor said.

The opposition leader, Judith Collins, also said New Zealand's trade relationship with China was the "elephant in the room" in the discussion. "At the moment, clearly we are [beholden to China] in terms of trade," she told Stuff.

Mahuta has previously come under fire for comments that New Zealand was "uncomfortable with expanding the remit of the Five Eyes," a remark that some saw as a shift away from traditional allies. In China, state-run media heralded the comments as "New Zealand secure[ing] its interests by distancing from US-led clique".

"In sharp contrast with Australia, which tied itself to the US' chariot, New Zealand has maintained a relatively independent approach on foreign policies, paving the way for the country to pursue policies that benefit its own economy," the Global Times wrote.

"To be clear, New Zealand values the Five Eyes relationship," Mahuta told the Guardian. "It's a security and intelligence framework from which we can work with trusted allies on those specific issues. But the human rights community is much broader than that. ... We don't need the Five Eyes to articulate where we stand on human rights issues."

Australia provides a vision of what collapse in that trade relationship could look like. The diplomatic rift escalated when Australia called for an investigation into the origins of Covid-19 in China. It has only intensified since.

China has retaliated with tariffs, import restrictions and a warning to its citizens not to travel to Australia. Analysis last year found China's declared and undeclared sanctions cost Australia around AU$47.7bn (£26.5bn) last year. So far, the impact of that trade war has been buffered by China's continued reliance on Australian iron ore. But China has been exploring how to shift its sourcing to mines in Brazil and Guinea – if they're successful, Australia could be hit harder.

New Zealand does not have an equivalent resource monopoly in its China trade relationship. "Everything that you can get from New Zealand, you can get elsewhere," international law professor Alexander Gillespie said.

"China will know our vulnerability in this area. And I think the way that we're positioning ourselves with our statements shows that we're conscious of that vulnerability as well," he said.
China says Five Eyes alliance will be 'poked and blinded' over Hong Kong stance

If it came, trade retaliation from China could hit New Zealand across multiple industries. Near the end of 2020, the value of exports to China alone surpassed the value of New Zealand's next four largest trading partners – Australia, the US, UK, and Japan – combined.

Trade to China accounts for 28% of New Zealand's overall exports, including a quarter of dairy exports, more than 60% of forestry products and around 50% of meat. The country is New Zealand's second-largest source of tourism cash, behind only Australia – before Covid-19, Chinese tourists were spending about $1.7bn in New Zealand each year. International education is a $5bn industry for New Zealand, and Chinese students make up about 47% of international students at New Zealand universities.

"Right now, China will be delighted with us because they will see us as the weak link in the Five Eyes," Gillespie said. "For a country like New Zealand to steer away from that words like genocide when the other countries use it, symbolically, it's important."

Asked about the differences between New Zealand and Australia's approaches to China, Mahuta said she did not "want to be drawn into commenting on the approach of another country in its bilateral relationship". But she did say that New Zealand's connection with China had changed, maturing over time.

"The relationship with China has moved beyond the relationship of firsts – we were the first to achieve a free trade agreement with China – to a maturing relationship ... where we can be respectful, consistent and predictable on the issues that are important to us, but also on the issues that separate and differentiate our view of the world from China."

Mahuta was careful to frame her message to exporters as part of a wider broadening of New Zealand's connections across the Asia-Pacific. "We've said that it's 'China, and,' not 'China, or'," she said.

New Zealand would need to strengthen its relationships across the region in the coming years, she said. "Trade is – while it is important, so is regional peace and stability."

It is incredibly difficult for New Zealand and Australia - but I think this does indicate why it's important to avoid becoming so economically tied to China. As it is I feel like there may be work the EU and other countries like Canada, UK and US can do to help Australia and New Zealand diversify their trade relations/exports.

I know there was the campaign to buy Aussie wine - which is an idea but probably not really enough