[Rugoz]

China has no territorial ambitions beyond those they already had 2,000 years ago. And this is supposed to be an indictment of China.

The Roman Empire controlled North Africa and most of the Middle East and Alexander the Great conquered Persia and India more than 2000 years ago. I suppose if the EU would conquer these territories and rule them with an iron fist that would be sufficient justification.

https://rhg.com/research/new-data-on-the-debt-trap-question/

At no point does this article compare Western and Chinese debt write off, don't waste my time.

China is the world leader in both innovating and manufacturing the materials needed for renewable energy production, as well as EVs and other green technologies. The ship has sailed, and China will reap the benefits of being the first to market both domestically and internationally.

More empty talk.

China has outpaced the US and EU in closing coal power plants over the last 4 years.

China has double the energy production of the US (8 million gigawatts vs 4.5 million gigawatts) produced buy green energy sources.

China (1st) has more investment in green energy technologies than the US (2) and Japan (3) combined.

China (1%) has double the number of electric vehicles on the road as either the EU (0.4%) or USA (0.45%), and more than both of them combined in absolute numbers.

None of that refutes my point: Electricity production in China is more than twice as dirty as in the EU and about one third dirtier than in the US in terms of co2/kwh (and unlike you I have provided sources).

Moreover when it comes air, water quality and biodiversity and habitat protection China its terrible.

You were the one claiming Western liberal capitalism couldn't deal with environmental problems.

Literal US propaganda arms i.e. Adrian Zenz (who is somehow behind most of the sources saying China Bad), HRW, Radio Free Asia etc are spearheading a massive anti-china campaign under the false pretence of morality and they never cite any sources just a vague, "Adrian Zenz notes", "An ex-pat told us" and somehow that's enough. This has literally been the modus-operandi of the western propaganda campaign for as long as the concept of propaganda has existed and yet every single time western populace falls for it, hook line and sinker. How many times are people going to plead, "we didn't know better at the time"?

There are plenty of eyewitness reports out there.

[Rancid]

In many parts of the west. Renewable energy has reach or surpassed grid parity with fossil fuels. As far as I can tell, looks like the west is well on its way to dealing with environmental issues.

[Crantag]

Such Western information war/psyopts tactics as these against China are nothing other than a new form of crusading. It is a missionary call to the citizenry for the spreading of the common false ideals (which are so vague and shifty as to be without actual meaning) as 'democracy', 'human rights', all the rest of them. The mass proselytizing of the Western masses--which is undertaken of course in the service of the ulterior motivation of the pursuit of geopolitical aspirations--seeks to condition the masses to experience hatred toward the declared enemies, i.e. China and Russia (and etc.).

BBC and CNN coverage of matters regarding Russia and China are frequently 'two minute hate' exercises.

[noemon]

Yeah man, it's clearly the west's fault that China is eradicating the Uighurs, imprisoning the representatives of the people of Hong Kong, building artificial islands to claim foreign waters, imposing sanctions on Australia for calling for an independent investigation on Covid-19, asking for blood sacrifices(Uighur people from Turkey) to deliver vaccines, dumping steel on our markets, and so much more.

Because apparently all these are okay things that noone should say anything about. And if anybody dares to mention anything then prison for them if they live in China or psyops propaganda if they live in the west.

[Fasces]

The child is being forcibly removed from its parents, forcibly lobotomised to hate its own religion and ethnic-identity and then sent back.

The intent is to eradicate the identity of this group and place the children into another group, which according to its official definition is what is genocide.

If we can't agree on simple facts, this discussion is pointless. The intent is not to eradicate the Uiygher identity, an identity which is incredibly popular across China.

The intent is to eradicate extreme Islamism. More specifically, the intent is to eradicate any religious identity that splits loyalty between a citizen and the state (look at the difficulties Catholics have, for example).

The extreme measures that China has chosen to accomplish this are repugnant - they've really weaponized big data as never before to try to predict Islamist extremism before radicalization. You start attending a new mosque or growing a beard? You get picked up and sent to "deradicalization school". You quit drinking? You get picked up and sent to "deradicalization school". You fast during Ramadan? You get picked up and sent to "deradicalization school".

The Roman Empire controlled North Africa and most of the Middle East and Alexander the Great conquered Persia and India more than 2000 years ago. I suppose if the EU would conquer these territories and rule them with an iron fist that would be sufficient justification.

The EU isn't the Roman Empire or the Greek Empire, nor claims to be.

Electricity production in China is more than twice as dirty as in the EU and about one third dirtier than in the US in terms of co2/kwh (and unlike you I have provided sources).

None of that has anything to do with my initial point. I don't agree that this is relevant metric to measure. I didn't say China was better positioned today. I said China has demonstrated forward thinking and is better prepared for responding to the consequences of climate change. China has positioned itself to be the leader in development and production of green technologies in the very century where they will be most needed while Western states continue to make token efforts while desperately sucking up to the gas lobby because their politics are fundamentally dysfunctional. They have built a strong administrative capacity to effectively manage and direct resources to areas in need, while the West continues to struggle with convincing citizens, pretty please, get vaccinated and put on a mask. The Western political and billionaire class has no moral or social legitimacy in the eyes of its people to make the structural changes Western states need to make, and will become something akin to 19th century China.

And you can verify any of my facts, if you care to do so. They're all falsifiable. Link dumps are not persuasive to me, and I'm not going to bother with it - especially for a side tangent from the main thread of discussion.

You were the one claiming Western liberal capitalism couldn't deal with environmental problems.

No, with the consequences of climate change. Rising sea levels. Refugees from the developing world. These pressures will cause Western society to implode.

In many parts of the west. Renewable energy has reach or surpassed grid parity with fossil fuels. As far as I can tell, looks like the west is well on its way to dealing with environmental issues.

In stunning news today, despite climate collapse across the world, the country of France has been magically spared the effects. "We just did a really good job with nuclear power back in the 90s and are reaping the benefits today," said one minister.

[noemon]

The EU isn't the Roman Empire or the Greek Empire, nor claims to be.

So all she needs is to claim she is and that would then be sufficient justification for you?

The extreme measures that China has chosen to accomplish this are repugnant - they've really weaponized big data as never before to try to predict Islamist extremism before radicalization. You start attending a new mosque or growing a beard? You get picked up and sent to "deradicalization school". You quit drinking? You get picked up and sent to "deradicalization school". You fast during Ramadan? You get picked up and sent to "deradicalization school".

Perhaps because "radical Islamism" is not the actual point but the eradication of the Uighur community whose religion is not even recognised in China. If that is not a red flag, I honestly don't know what is.

[Fasces]

So all she needs is to claim she is and that would then be sufficient justification for you?

If she claims to be the Roman Empire, and all the citizens agree with that claim, then yeah, pretty much. What else is required for nationhood?

Perhaps because "radical Islamism" is not the actual point but the eradication of the Uighur community whose religion is not even recognised in China.

The Uiygher community is not Islamic by default. Atheist Uiyghers are still Uiygher. Christian Uiyghers are still Christian.

As for Islam not being recognized in China. You've mentioned the big 5 religions legally allowed (defined as permitted by SARA) in China before in this thread - what are they? Can you list them, please?

Here's a picture of a mosque just down the street from my apartment, which I took:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/ ... 939116.jpg

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/ ... 931846.jpg

You can google 'Qingdao mosque' if you want more pictures.

China has tens of thousands of mosques, and Hui Muslims number in the millions. What are you talking about?

[noemon]

If she claims to be the Roman Empire, and all the citizens agree with that claim, then yeah, pretty much. What else is required for nationhood?

Do the Uighurs, Tibetans, HK people agree with China's claim?

Rugoz asked you that if Europe(not the EU) ruled the former Greco-Roman territories with China's iron fist would that be justified, according to you?

You only used historical occupation as a justification but even adding consent to the mix still does not make your argument correct especially in this case(Uighurs) when no consent is asked or provided.

What's next? Yet another goal post transition?

The Uiygher community is not Islamic by default. Atheist Uiyghers are still Uiygher. Christian Uiyghers are still Christian.

As for Islam not being recognized in China. You've mentioned the big 5 religions legally allowed (defined as permitted by SARA) in China before in this thread - what are they? Can you list them, please? What are you talking about?

This:

The long history in ROC's constraint of the freedom of religion is a prelude to that of the PRC; the ruling Communist Party of China officially espouses state atheism,[4] and has conducted antireligious campaigns to this end.[5] China's five officially sanctioned religious organizations are the Buddhist Association of China, Chinese Taoist Association, Islamic Association of China, Three-Self Patriotic Movement and Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association. These groups have been overseen and controlled by the United Front Work Department of the Communist Party of China since the State Administration for Religious Affairs' absorption into the United Front Work Department in 2018.[6] Unregistered religious groups—including house churches, Falun Gong, Tibetan Buddhists, underground Catholics, and Uyghur Muslims—face varying degrees of harassment, including imprisonment and torture.[2]

[Fasces]

Rugoz asked you that if Europe(not the EU) ruled the former Greco-Roman territories with China's iron fist would that be justified, according to you?

I don't even understand the point of this tangent. The initial query was whether or not China's claims were evidence of an expansionist national character. My refutation was that China's territorial ambitions have remained consistent for 2,000 years, and there is no reason to expect the CCP to act as the next Genghis Khan, or Napoleon, or Hitler. Their claim in Xinjiang today does not mean they will have a claim on Pakistan in the future.

So sure - if a hypothetical Rome still existed, hypothetically still occupying the territory that Rome had at the height of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and had hypothetically occupied that territory on and off for 2,000 years without expanding or interfering beyond those borders or making significant effort to do so, then yes, I would also call this hypothetical Rome as being inwardly focused and non-expansionistic and I would not be worried about Roman lebensraum claims over "Japan" or "Russia".

There's a (ok, not the best) book by Marques Jaques that does speaks to the fears a lot of Westerners have with China. Specifically, he makes the point that because modernity = Western for so long, the Western psyche has accepted it as true that all modernity will look and act in a Western way. We are projecting the character of our own states into a non-Western one because it is developing and we implicitly assume that developing materially must include adopting a Western mindset. I agree with him that in the future we will be looking at multiple types of modernity, and that we can't assume that China will become 'Westernized' or behave in 'Western' ways. I do not think China has any territorial ambitions beyond her current claims/border disputes.

Do the Uighurs, Tibetan, HK people agree with China's claim?

Yes. The HK people voted to rejoin China. The Tibetan government-in-exile recognizes the legal sovereignty of the Chinese government over Tibet, including the Dalai Lama. Xinjiang would probably vote to stay in China given the opportunity, and the only major separatist groups are the Turkestan movement which has significant links with ISIS and Al Qaeda.

Unregistered religious groups—including house churches, Falun Gong, Tibetan Buddhists, underground Catholics, and Uyghur Muslims—face varying degrees of harassment, including imprisonment and torture.[2]

Your evidence seems to sum up exactly what I said

The intent is to eradicate extreme Islamism. More specifically, the intent is to eradicate any religious identity that splits loyalty between a citizen and the state (look at the difficulties Catholics have, for example).

These religions are not illegal (as long as they don't divert loyalty from the state), and this treatment isn't unique to Uiyghers. Uiygher Muslims can still exist, as long as they register with SARA and their mosque/cleric is part of the Islamic Association of China.

China is not against 'Uiygher Islam', it is against all religious institutions that challenge state authority. For the 'genocide' label to apply, legally speaking, they would need to specifically and unfairly target a specific ethnic group and this to me seems like just China's general anti-religious sentiment.

[Rancid]

Yeah man, it's clearly the west's fault that China is eradicating the Uighurs, imprisoning the representatives of the people of Hong Kong, building artificial islands to claim foreign waters, imposing sanctions on Australia for calling for an independent investigation on Covid-19, asking for blood sacrifices(Uighur people from Turkey) to deliver vaccines, dumping steel on our markets, and so much more.

Because apparently all these are okay things that noone should say anything about. And if anybody dares to mention anything then prison for them if they live in China or psyops propaganda if they live in the west.

You are talking to someone that used to have Stalin on his signature (got rid of it because he probably got tired of everyone making fun of him for that). Of course he's ok with people getting displaced, disappeared, reeducated, imprisoned, etc.

[noemon]

I don't even understand the point of this tangent.

Sure you don't.

if a hypothetical Rome still existed, hypothetically still occupying the territory that Rome had at the height of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and had hypothetically occupied that territory on and off for 2,000 years

The Roman Empire iterations have done all that for more than 2000 years.

The Roman Empire itself both Western and Eastern,

Prussia, Russia, the Roman Empire of the Germanic nation, the Concert of Europe, the Med Council, the EU.

The current Union of the Mediterranean:



The current Council of Europe:

Yes. The HK people voted to rejoin China. The Tibetan government-in-exile recognizes the legal sovereignty of the Chinese government over Tibet, including the Dalai Lama. Xinjiang would probably vote to stay in China given the opportunity, and the only major separatist groups are the Turkestan movement which has significant links with ISIS and Al Qaeda.

Wow, you have gone on another level, you are actually claiming that HK's democratic representatives being arrested, Uighur children being forcibly removed, Tibet being cordoned off are all happening with the willing consent of these people.

These religions are not illegal (as long as they don't divert loyalty from the state), and this treatment isn't unique to Uiyghers. Uiygher Muslims can still exist, as long as they register with SARA and their mosque/cleric is part of the Islamic Association of China.

China is not against 'Uiygher Islam', it is against all religious institutions that challenge state authority. For the 'genocide' label to apply, legally speaking, they would need to specifically and unfairly target a specific ethnic group and this to me seems like just China's general anti-religious sentiment.

They are targeting the specific ethnic groups that they consider even marginally dangerous just like any other genocidal maniac throughout history with 'repugnant' measures such as those you mentioned.

[Fasces]

Sure you don't

I honestly don't. You're trying to demonstrate that China is expansionist and imperialist? I disagree - there is a consensus among the residents of China about what China "is" and "includes", and this consensus has been remarkably consistent for 2,000-3,000 years. I don't see how China's claims to these territories are indicative of their behavior toward other territories in the future. I don't see, at all, how China owning Xinjiang unchecked is going to lead to China making claims on the territory of Peru or Thailand. China wants what it has + Taiwan and the South China Sea, and that's it.

Then you're making a comparison to countries li Spain or Italy, and saying they have claim to the whole Roman Empire, a claim they've never made themselves. They don't call themselves Romans. They don't claim Roman borders. They don't consider those lands to be lost, at all, much less presently occupy them.

So to answer your question - if a hypothetical Roman state, or even a state claiming to be the rightful ruler of all of Rome, as defined by their greatest territorial extent, and had controlled all these territories on and off for thousands of years, and made no issue about territories beyond that border, I would not call such a state 'expansionist'.

They are targeting the specific ethnic groups that they consider even marginally dangerous just like any other genocidal maniac throughout history with 'repugnant' measures such as those you mentioned.

We can agree that they target groups on their perceived potential for violence - but not on the basis of their ethnicity. Uiyghers aren't being targeted by China because they're Uiygher and the goal isn't to stamp out Uiygher identity.

Wow, you have gone on another level, you are actually claiming that HK's democratic representatives being arrested, Uighur children being forcibly removed, Tibet being cordoned off are all happening with the willing consent of these people.

A majority of Hong Kong voted to join China, and about half disagree with the HK protest movement.

The Tibetan government in exile fully acknowledges the sovereignty of the Chinese state over Tibet, as do a significant majority of Tibetan residents.

Xinjiang is definitely a hotspot for unrest within China, but most residents (especially the half that aren't Uiygher) want to stay in China. Kyrgyzstan certainly isn't getting a trillion dollar high speed rail line anytime soon.

[noemon]

I honestly don't. You're trying to demonstrate that China is expansionist and imperialist? I disagree - there is a consensus among the residents of China about what China "is" and "includes", and this consensus has been remarkably consistent for 2,000-3,000 years.

The predominant ethnic-group of the Han Chinese agree that China is not expansionist and that makes it true. Got it.

I don't see how China's claims to these territories are indicative of their behavior toward other territories in the future. I don't see, at all, how China owning Xinjiang unchecked is going to lead to China making claims on the territory of Peru or Thailand. China wants what it has + Taiwan and the South China Sea, and that's it.

Hitler in the 1940's: "I only want a slice of Poland, the German part".

We can agree that they target groups on their perceived potential for violence - but not on the basis of their ethnicity. Uiyghers aren't being targeted by China because they're Uiygher and the goal isn't to stamp out Uiygher identity.

Riiight, and Hitler was not targeting groups based on their identity but based on the imagined potential to destroy or dilute "Germany and Germanism" however defined by the national consensus of the time.

A majority of Hong Kong voted to join China, and about half disagree with the HK protest movement.

The Tibetan government in exile fully acknowledges the sovereignty of the Chinese state over Tibet, as do a significant majority of Tibetan residents.

Xinjiang is definitely a hotspot for unrest within China, but most residents (especially the half that aren't Uiygher) want to stay in China. Kyrgyzstan certainly isn't getting a trillion dollar high speed rail line anytime soon.

No mate, China does not have anybody's consent to arrest the elected representatives of Hong Kong. It does not have the Uighurs consent to take away their children by force and it does not have the consent of the Tibetan people to treat them like shit and to keep their religion unrecognised and subject to discrimination.

[Fasces]

k

[wat0n]

@Fasces even if China isn't expansionist, would you say it has imperialist tendencies? You don't need to expand your own borders to exert overwhelming influence over another government.

[Fasces]

even if China isn't expansionist, would you say it has imperialist tendencies? You don't need to expand your own borders to exert overwhelming influence over another government.

No worse than any advanced Western state - and less than the United States, given their propensity for military interference - with the fringe benefit, at least thus far, that their desire to buy soft power and be seen as a global leader has led them down a path of empowering and building up the global south.

[Beren]

I am criticizing American motives

What American motives do you mean? Because Pompeo's last actions in office hardly say anything about the intentions of the Biden administration, for example. In my opinion he got a free hand to serve himself and his masters, some of whom may be Americans.

Maybe I should open a thread about this, though.

[wat0n]

No worse than any advanced Western state - and less than the United States, given their propensity for military interference - with the fringe benefit, at least thus far, that their desire to buy soft power and be seen as a global leader has led them down a path of empowering and building up the global south.

I see.

I think then one may wonder how long will this last for. I don't think it will last forever.

[Fasces]

I think then one may wonder how long will this last for. I don't think it will last forever.

There is no question that it won't last forever. Hopefully it ends with the growth of new African and South American powers, such as Nigeria, Ethiopia, or Brazil. If it lasts long enough to shatter the myth that Modernity = Westernization and the toppling of a world oligarchy built by colonial exploitation, then great.

[Fasces]

What American motives do you mean?

The growing bipartisan and billionaire consensus in America that a new Cold War is

1) occurring (and being propagated by the political elites of both powers)
2) desirable (to promote American unity by giving them an external foe like the USSR again because they're all cabal of geriatrics that can't think of anything new, and to give Congress an excuse to start handing out billions to the military-industrial complex again)

I don't want the world divided into spheres again, with the threat of nuclear hellfire affecting every citizen, just because some billionaire Frank Smith can't accept billionaire Wang Mu competing with him in India's burgeoning cellphone market. And I especially resent having to pretend that its a battle of good versus evil and good ol' America is just here to save us from the evil horde of Chinese.