Is this legal? No farangs welcome...

[dexterm]

Chinese mistreatment of Uighurs and other minorities in China is ultimately counter productive when they could have them content and eating out of their hand.

This rounding millions up into re-education concentration camps is just the latest in a series of repressive measures trying to undermine their culture and religion such as forbidding Muslims from celebrating their holy festivals.

 

If China simply respected the Uighur and others' culture and religions, flooded the regions with free cradle to grave healthcare, education, and employment, they would be looking across the borders to the repressive dictatorships of the Stans, and thanking their lucky stars they live in China.

There are only about 12 million Uighurs in an ocean of 1.4 billion mainly Han Chinese...it would cost a mere pin prick in China's budget, generate international goodwill, domestic peace and save them multiple times over in security.

 

Always the same in this world: big stick and repression = resentment and violent reaction. Usually followed by too little too late.

[dexterm]

26 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Because slogans are the answer to everything.

 

You have dodged the point raised by the post replied to, regarding the Arab world's stance on the matter. That is, unless the opening slogan's implication was that the Arab world is either excluded or exempt.

 

As for your assertions regarding the USA's supposed leverage - the negotiations and situation between the sides isn't nearly as imbalanced as implied. Claiming that "a word in the ear" may alter China's relevant domestic policy would require a bit more than a poster saying so. China is not particularity known as receptive to even commentary by foreign powers on such matters.

 

And as opined above, kinda amusing seeing them double standards with regards to the USA excreting influence.

One Saudi unelected aristocrat does not represent the Arab world.

 

As usual you are more concerned with carping criticism than actually suggesting anything constructive to relieve the suffering of millions.

 

Perhaps you should look at China's latest downgrade of their GDP due to the effect of Trump's trade war.

 

What harm would it do for Trump's negotiators to link trade talks with human rights issues. USA is doing so right now with other countries.

Edited March 6, 2019 by dexterm

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Chinese mistreatment of Uighurs and other minorities in China is ultimately counter productive when they could have them content and eating out of their hand.

This rounding millions up into re-education concentration camps is just the latest in a series of repressive measures trying to undermine their culture and religion such as forbidding Muslims from celebrating their holy festivals.

 

If China simply respected the Uighur and others' culture and religions, flooded the regions with free cradle to grave healthcare, education, and employment, they would be looking across the borders to the repressive dictatorships of the Stans, and thanking their lucky stars they live in China.

There are only about 12 million Uighurs in an ocean of 1.4 billion mainly Han Chinese...it would cost a mere pin prick in China's budget, generate international goodwill, domestic peace and save them multiple times over in security.

 

Always the same in this world: big stick and repression = resentment and violent reaction. Usually followed by too little too late.

 

If China wasn't China, but an imaginary progressive country dreamed up then all would be well, says poster.

 

Doubt them predictions and projections are based on anything much, even if they were relevant in any meaningful way.

 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

One Saudi unelected aristocrat does not represent the Arab world.

 

As usual you are more concerned with carping criticism than actually suggesting anything constructive to relieve the suffering of millions.

 

Deflect away. I don't recall pointing out to a specific Arab country, ruler or aristocrat. Most Arab countries, and indeed, the Muslim world, were and are pretty mild when it comes to criticism on this score. Never mind actions.

 

As usual, you're moral grandstanding when can't address point raised. There's no obligation to "suggest" anything. There isn't necessarily a handy and realistic "constructive" solution. That you paint fantasies as such is all very well, but not quite it.

 

[dexterm]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

If China wasn't China, but an imaginary progressive country dreamed up then all would be well, says poster.

 

Doubt them predictions and projections are based on anything much, even if they were relevant in any meaningful way.

 

And your constructive solution to relieve the suffering of millions of Uighurs is....?

[lannarebirth]

11 minutes ago, dexterm said:

One Saudi unelected aristocrat does not represent the Arab world.

 

As usual you are more concerned with carping criticism than actually suggesting anything constructive to relieve the suffering of millions.

 

Perhaps you should look at China's latest downgrade of their GDP due to the effect of Trump's trade war.

 

What harm would it do for Trump's negotiators to link trade talks with human rights issues. USA is doing so right now with other countries.

 

Linkage is a very effective diplomatic tool when conducting negotiations between nations. It's been taken out of the diplomatic toolbag since Nixon's time because negotiations are now held between "interests" which are much more narrowly defined.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, dexterm said:

And your constructive solution to relieve the suffering of millions of Uighurs is....?

 

Repeated deflection.

 

I wasn't aware there was a requirement to provide a "constructive solution", or that you aired anything resembling such. Not delusional enough to think I've got answers and solutions for all issues or indeed, that such answers and solutions exist.

 

 

[samran]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Like Tibet?

Fair point.

 

Having said that, the world was hoping that increased engagement (plus huge market access and lower labour costs) while going softly softly on he human rights stuff would eventually help bring china around on the latter.

 

Now that China is starting to swing its weight around it is clear that approach hasn't worked, so people are going to be increasingly willing to stand up to China.

 

[samran]

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

If China wasn't China, but an imaginary progressive country dreamed up then all would be well, says poster.

 

Doubt them predictions and projections are based on anything much, even if they were relevant in any meaningful way.

 

Doesn't have to be a progressive wet dream of a country.

 

The CCP did it with its own people, increasing their living standards, letting them get rich and hoping the pay off was silence.

[dexterm]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Repeated deflection.

 

I wasn't aware there was a requirement to provide a "constructive solution", or that you aired anything resembling such. Not delusional enough to think I've got answers and solutions for all issues or indeed, that such answers and solutions exist.

 

 

 

>>I wasn't aware there was a requirement to provide a "constructive solution"
...speaks volumes.

 

Ah yes, the world is what it is. We can't do anything about it.  It's all in the too hard basket. 

Nonsense.

 

The history of progress is when folks refuse to accept the status quo and speak out against repression.

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, samran said:

Fair point.

 

Having said that, the world was hoping that increased engagement (plus huge market access and lower labour costs) while going softly softly on he human rights stuff would eventually help bring china around on the latter.

 

Now that China is starting to swing its weight around it is clear that approach hasn't worked, so people are going to be increasingly willing to stand up to China.

 

 

Again, other than wishful thinking, is there really much evidence to support the last assertion? And mind, I somehow doubt that outside "the West" some posters like to go on about, the world at large is truly invested in human rights (beyond local/regional interests and struggles).

[Morch]

19 minutes ago, samran said:

Doesn't have to be a progressive wet dream of a country.

 

The CCP did it with its own people, increasing their living standards, letting them get rich and hoping the pay off was silence.

 

That would be a fair point, but the post I was replying to went way over that - hence the comment. Also, the buying off part of the sociopolitical contract demands assimilation, lack of criticism and going along with the program. Not sure how that applies as far as minorities holding on to certain traditions/religion.

[Morch]

23 minutes ago, dexterm said:

 

>>I wasn't aware there was a requirement to provide a "constructive solution"
...speaks volumes.

 

Ah yes, the world is what it is. We can't do anything about it.  It's all in the too hard basket. 

Nonsense.

 

The history of progress is when folks refuse to accept the status quo and speak out against repression.

 

Confusing fact-light fantasies with "constructive solutions" does speak volumes. And still deflecting as to the original post's point, obviously.

 

Nothing said about being unable to change the world, or being unable to do anything about it. And, of course, nothing about any basket. Pointing out that the views suggested are unrealistic, fact-light and ripe with double-standards is none of the above.

 

And as for the standard issue moral grandstanding - may I refer you, once more, to previous comments made with regard to the Arab and Muslim worlds' reaction? 

[samran]

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Again, other than wishful thinking, is there really much evidence to support the last assertion? And mind, I somehow doubt that outside "the West" some posters like to go on about, the world at large is truly invested in human rights (beyond local/regional interests and struggles).

With respect to human rights? Probably not just yet, but I think that will come.

 

But you are right, outside the west they care little about these things, at the same time, those same countries are less inclined to allowing their own nationals/industries being ridden roughshod over.

 

Trade/security wise, certainly as the stakes are higher and 'the west' are making noises that China is taking the piss. Huawei being blocked by the five eyes countries for 5G roll out given security concerns (not to mention their market share), more stringent foreign ownership rules for strategic assets in places like Australia and NZ. Little niggles, but niggling that I don't think countries would have dared done 10 years ago for fear of 'offending'.

 

The whole theme of 'China doesn't play fair' is a useful for so many reasons, and throwing human rights into that narrative is useful, albeit pragmatic strategy.

 

Outside the 'west' countries are getting good at saying no, when not saying no. Notice how 'well' the China high speed train to Thailand is going? Its not.....

 

The belt and road initiative and rejection of it gave Mahatir a good platform. 

 

 

[samran]

30 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That would be a fair point, but the post I was replying to went way over that - hence the comment. Also, the buying off part of the sociopolitical contract demands assimilation, lack of criticism and going along with the program. Not sure how that applies as far as minorities holding on to certain traditions/religion.

The Malaysian's did it in reverse, gave the Chinese business freedom while giving the Bumi's political control. That worked for a long while.

 

As for Western China, who knows. What most people want is to be left to get on with things. Given that China is multi lingual and has a whole range of regional differences anyway, I'm sure using those skills to negotiate those disparate interests could have been more effectively managed out west.

[dexterm]

32 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Confusing fact-light fantasies with "constructive solutions" does speak volumes. And still deflecting as to the original post's point, obviously.

 

Nothing said about being unable to change the world, or being unable to do anything about it. And, of course, nothing about any basket. Pointing out that the views suggested are unrealistic, fact-light and ripe with double-standards is none of the above.

 

And as for the standard issue moral grandstanding - may I refer you, once more, to previous comments made with regard to the Arab and Muslim worlds' reaction? 

>>may I refer you, once more, to previous comments made with regard to the Arab and Muslim worlds' reaction? 

 

The only linked reaction from the Arab or Muslim world in this thread is an item provided by poster #5 from an unelected Saudi Prince, and I responded to that.  MBS does not represent the Arab and Muslim world, nor even the citizens of his own country.

 

Other posters previous comments re reaction of the Muslim World to facilitate their dehumanization of the Uighurs are unsubstantiated unlinked Islamophobic fantasies...the usual fare. 

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, samran said:

With respect to human rights? Probably not just yet, but I think that will come.

 

But you are right, outside the west they care little about these things, at the same time, those same countries are less inclined to allowing their own nationals/industries being ridden roughshod over.

 

Trade/security wise, certainly as the stakes are higher and 'the west' are making noises that China is taking the piss. Huawei being blocked by the five eyes countries for 5G roll out given security concerns (not to mention their market share), more stringent foreign ownership rules for strategic assets in places like Australia and NZ. Little niggles, but niggling that I don't think countries would have dared done 10 years ago for fear of 'offending'.

 

The whole theme of 'China doesn't play fair' is a useful for so many reasons, and throwing human rights into that narrative is useful, albeit pragmatic strategy.

 

Outside the 'west' countries are getting good at saying no, when not saying no. Notice how 'well' the China high speed train to Thailand is going? Its not.....

 

The belt and road initiative and rejection of it gave Mahatir a good platform. 

 

 

 

Well, perhaps 10 years ago (not putting a definite time stamp, using your own words) China's outward push wasn't what it is today - less of threat (perceived or real a different question) for sure. A stronger reaction currently would be a reflection of how things evolved.

 

As to which way things are heading on the human rights angle, who knows. I doubt, though, that there will be an effective and strong push-back on such issues from the international community. Lack of interest, having different priorities and China being difficult to handle handle when it comes to a fragmented world stage.

 

I think it more likely that if such a resistance was to form, it would more likely originate from within. That is, if the Chinese leadership retains it's outward push, and fails to keep the balance at home. Countries (or rather, empires) overextending themselves is a major factor in decline and downfall (or to be less negative - change and reform). But this could take a long while indeed, so quite possible beyond the scope of the current issue. Repression of the Uighur can even be construed as contributing to China's stability - given that it's not (as far as I'm aware) a hyper-controversial issue among the mainstream citizenry.

 

Regarding the belt and road stalling...

 

Italy plans to join China's Belt and Road Initiative - Financial Times

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1087942-italy-plans-to-join-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-financial-times/

 

[Morch]

30 minutes ago, samran said:

The Malaysian's did it in reverse, gave the Chinese business freedom while giving the Bumi's political control. That worked for a long while.

 

As for Western China, who knows. What most people want is to be left to get on with things. Given that China is multi lingual and has a whole range of regional differences anyway, I'm sure using those skills to negotiate those disparate interests could have been more effectively managed out west.

 

China may have many regional differences and language, but the prevailing political culture isn't inclusive. IMO, posters conflate between what they consider China's best interest or optimal ways of dealing with things, and how the Chinese leadership's take on such issues.

 

One doesn't need to embrace their point of view, or to even consider it legitimate - just to acknowledge that it represents a different set of priorities/values and that, from where they are standing, it works well enough, and without the potential risks (again, from their point of view) represented by a more liberal approach.

[dexterm]

37 minutes ago, samran said:

The Malaysian's did it in reverse, gave the Chinese business freedom while giving the Bumi's political control. That worked for a long while.

 

As for Western China, who knows. What most people want is to be left to get on with things. Given that China is multi lingual and has a whole range of regional differences anyway, I'm sure using those skills to negotiate those disparate interests could have been more effectively managed out west.

>>I'm sure using those skills to negotiate those disparate interests could have been more effectively managed out west.

.... Indeed it could.

 

What's the point of China undermining religious freedom: forbidding Muslims (less than 1% of your population) from fasting during Ramadan their holiest month, forbidding the reading of the Quran, forcing men to shave their beards, not allowing women to wear a head scarf, not allowing under 18s to attend a mosque, forbidding your choice of your children's names, banning religious marriages, attempts at birth control for Muslims, treating mosques like tourist museums.

 

Why needlessly upset people and create resentment? When you could have them content and eating out of your hand?

 

[Morch]

24 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>may I refer you, once more, to previous comments made with regard to the Arab and Muslim worlds' reaction? 

 

The only linked reaction from the Arab or Muslim world in this thread is an item provided by poster #5 from an unelected Saudi Prince, and I responded to that.  MBS does not represent the Arab and Muslim world, nor even the citizens of his own country.

 

Other posters previous comments re reaction of the Muslim World to facilitate their dehumanization of the Uighurs are unsubstantiated unlinked Islamophobic fantasies...the usual fare. 

 

Deflect all you like. There wasn't and there isn't any meaningful reaction, or action from the Arab/Muslim world. A few fiery words from the usual hotheads, and that's about it. Not much by way of cutting relations, cancelling deals or using leverage (that oil....). If you want to pretend not to be aware of this, go right ahead. You want to harp on MBS as a deflection, that's alright as well. Just that neither make for much of a reasoned response.

 

I have no idea how pointing out that the Arab/Muslim world's inaction and silence on the matter is a fact, amounts to the last bit of your post. Especially not as it is contrasted with posts alleging "the West"'s guilt, responsibility and failure to respond.

 

 

[dexterm]

28 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

China may have many regional differences and language, but the prevailing political culture isn't inclusive. IMO, posters conflate between what they consider China's best interest or optimal ways of dealing with things, and how the Chinese leadership's take on such issues.

 

One doesn't need to embrace their point of view, or to even consider it legitimate - just to acknowledge that it represents a different set of priorities/values and that, from where they are standing, it works well enough, and without the potential risks (again, from their point of view) represented by a more liberal approach.

You could just about substitute for "China" in your post the names of every repressive regime in history.

 

You're an intelligent man. Recall the names of a few downright evil monsters in charge of sovereign countries in history whose "prevailing political culture was not inclusive", who have had "a different set of priorities/values and that, from where they are standing, it works well enough".

Millions of innocents could have been saved if powerful countries like the USA had interfered a bit more often.

 

That's what the OP is all about. Trump has the power to speak up "J'accuse". Let China be aware that they may feel they are getting away with their persecution of a minority, but the world is watching. Better than sticking one's head in the sand.

[Mavideol]

On 3/5/2019 at 7:13 AM, NanLaew said:

DJT's best buddy MBS recently commended DJT's other best buddy China's Xi Jinping on their (mis)handling of their Muslim Uighur minorities. All we need is Uncle Vlad with his state repression in the Caucasus to make the unholy triumvirate, no?

Saudi crown prince defends China's right to put Uighur Muslims in concentration camps

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/22/saudi-crown-prince-defends-chinas-right-put-uighur-muslims-concentration/

 

Can't see what US lawmakers even have a dog in this fight. Maybe it's just another 'Get Trump' exercise?

and since the saudi prince was protected by trump (they are best friends now, like with the NK leader) if the saudi prince says nothing trump nothing will say as well

[Mavideol]

On 3/5/2019 at 6:26 AM, webfact said:

China denies the allegations.

did they ever accepted any accusations..... sure denial was expected and has been repeated over and over by the Chinese, the BBC reported on it, showed videos of the camps, interviews and they still deny it exists

[Morch]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

>>I'm sure using those skills to negotiate those disparate interests could have been more effectively managed out west.

.... Indeed it could.

 

What's the point of China undermining religious freedom: forbidding Muslims (less than 1% of your population) from fasting during Ramadan their holiest month, forbidding the reading of the Quran, forcing men to shave their beards, not allowing women to wear a head scarf, not allowing under 18s to attend a mosque, forbidding your choice of your children's names, banning religious marriages, attempts at birth control for Muslims, treating mosques like tourist museums.

 

Why needlessly upset people and create resentment? When you could have them content and eating out of your hand?

 

 

What's the point of debating this if you're either unaware or unwilling to accept that China's leadership doesn't see things your way, holds different values and got different sets of priorities and goals?

 

China's policies seem to be fixated on the notion that assimilation is key to social cohesion and stability. Cultural aspects which are seen as potentially endangering such goals are dealt with harshly. Their way of maintaining control and stability. Comes with a price. So far, most Chinese people seem to accept this, and most of the world is either uninterested or not in a position to confront/force China to change.

[manarak]

Muslims rights in remote Chinese provinces are a concern for US lawmakers... riiiiiiight.

 

At least it clearly demonstrates how totally off-center foreign political issues can be linked with US domestic politics.

Edited March 6, 2019 by manarak

[Morch]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

You could just about substitute for "China" in your post the names of every repressive regime in history.

 

You're an intelligent man. Recall the names of a few downright evil monsters in charge of sovereign countries in history whose "prevailing political culture was not inclusive", who have had "a different set of priorities/values and that, from where they are standing, it works well enough".

Millions of innocents could have been saved if powerful countries like the USA had interfered a bit more often.

 

That's what the OP is all about. Trump has the power to speak up "J'accuse". Let China be aware that they may feel they are getting away with their persecution of a minority, but the world is watching. Better than sticking one's head in the sand.

 

The USA is not in a position to force China to change its domestic policies. And, like it or not, the USA doesn't necessarily share your supposed set of priorities. That's even without getting into whether the current president got any inclination or capacity to go there. Asserting that Trump got the power to say this or that ignores who he is. Expecting he'll change is futile. Same goes for building up them faux expectations.

 

There is a distinct lack any wide, effective, or coherent international opposition to China on this front. Not even (deflect away) from the Arab/Muslim world. Not surprising given Trump's foreign policies, but an open question whether the USA could have managed such anyway.

 

Can't see the merit of complaining about USA's interventionism, imperialism, meddling and whatnot - but whining when it does not or can not act in such a manner.

 

And, as usual, other than even more moral grandstanding, your post doesn't actually address point made - China (or China's leadership, whatever) doesn't follow a mind-set which you imply to be universal. That you opine as to what's best for China is all very well, just a bit meaningless.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Morch

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Mavideol said:

and since the saudi prince was protected by trump (they are best friends now, like with the NK leader) if the saudi prince says nothing trump nothing will say as well

 

That doesn't even make sense an logical argument, maybe a language thing. But anyway, I doubt that with regard to the topic at hand, such a connection actually exists. Both leaders/countries got enough reasons of their own not to stir this pot.

[Mavideol]

57 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What's the point of debating this if you're either unaware or unwilling to accept that China's leadership doesn't see things your way, holds different values and got different sets of priorities and goals?

 

China's policies seem to be fixated on the notion that assimilation is key to social cohesion and stability. Cultural aspects which are seen as potentially endangering such goals are dealt with harshly. Their way of maintaining control and stability. Comes with a price. So far, most Chinese people seem to accept this, and most of the world is either uninterested or not in a position to confront/force China to change.

agree and unfortunately that's true, however they should keep/use consistency on their behavior towards the western civilization and not use the DEMOCRACY excuse when it's convenient and fits their purpose, in other words, if we are to accept they are different and have their own sets of priorities and goals than they should also accept that westerners have different principles, priorities and goals as well, what goes around comes around

 

[dexterm]

Just because the Chinese are powerful economically and militarily does not mean they should be immune from vehement criticism for their heinous treatment of minorities, and they certainly should not be excused with the lame apology: well it's just the Chinese way of doing things.

 

We are all aware of where such appeasement and turning a blind eye to crimes against humanity has led to previously in history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity

 

Congratulations to the US lawmakers who raised the issue; shame on Trump for his inaction.

Edited March 6, 2019 by dexterm

[Morch]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

Just because the Chinese are powerful economically and militarily does not mean they should be immune from vehement criticism for their heinous treatment of minorities, and they certainly should not be excused with the lame apology: well it's just the Chinese way of doing things.

 

We are all aware of where such appeasement and turning a blind eye to crimes against humanity has led to previously in history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity

 

Congratulations to the US lawmakers who raised the issue; shame on Trump for his inaction.

 

Just because reality is not to your liking, is not a reason to ignore it or distort facts. There wasn't anything said about not criticizing China's ways, never mind the made up "apology". Obviously, some posters feel that a vehement rant on an expat forum in Thailand implies doing something, making a difference or earning them some sort of moral high-ground. Unsurprisingly, the expectation is that politicians will adopt a similar style. Each to their own, I guess.

 

There's no shortage of articles and resources detailing China's human rights record. It is curious that in the link provided, China is only mentioned in reference to its part in the Tokyo Trial. Go figure.

 

China's transgressions on this front are nothing new (as mentioned earlier, Tibet, for example). Could be wrong, but was there a similar drive, in the recent past, to push such an agenda? I'm not saying it is wrong, just that ignoring the context of USA domestic politics is a choice.

 

Same goes for some posters' reactions - apparently more to do with context rather than representing a principled approach. Not too long ago it was the USA warmongering (South China Sea), foolishness (trade war), and China being a possible replacement for the USA on the international stage.