Political_Observer wrote:Here is an article that discusses an activist who was imprisoned for 17 years. Seems you are trying to white wash the reality of Chinese Communist Party.
No one is whitewashing shit. Looks like he got 17 years for setting fire to some military vehicles and throwing Molotov cocktails. A bit excessive, IMO, but excessive sentencing is hardly a unique ill of the CCP.
The students’ slogans about democracy and about changing their society affected him, and he began to believe in the cause.
About what sort of democracy? Not the liberal Western style the article implies, at least, not outside the student faction led by Fang (who played a greater role in the 1986 protests than the famous 1989 ones).
The root of the protests was threefold:
1) a protest against nepotism and the lack of ability of common folks to become members of the Communist Party (something that both Hu and Xi have attempted to address since, trying to greatly expand CCP membership);
2) a protest against the illegal power of informal and retired leaders. Some headway was made here, though Xi seems to have simply decided the best approach is to remove mandatory retirement policies to formalize the role of these elders, rather than actually try to limit their influence (himself included);
and 3) in 1989, the largest protest movement present in Beijing was anti-reform
(the BWAF). They protested economic liberalization as enabling corruption within the CCP by party leaders, a fair criticism - their biggest success has actually been the adoption of their cause by Xi Jingping, who championed anti-corruption all the way into the chief job, from a lowly city manager, and his anti-corruption work is what makes him quite popular within China. (Incidentally, this is perhaps the single biggest issue I see with the critiques on here: the idea that a 'democratic' China would be any more deferential to Western strategic interests in the Pacific. The CCP is often a restrained actor, relative to the loudest voices within China. If China were democratic, whoever promised to invade Taiwan, crush the Islamist Uiyghers, and roll tanks into and integrate Hong Kong would easily win any election. They'd still be antagonistic toward the US-led order in the Pacific, and they wouldn't abandon any of their foreign policy goals or take on the submissive attitude many commentators on here seem to expect they should be taking.)
Incidentally, none of this has anything to do with the topic at hand. It's just deflection and avoiding the crux of the criticism - that you have internalized a distorted image of China in your head, that this distortion is deliberately cultivated by the US
as part of its strategic plans in the region and its policy of manufacturing consent
, and that the issue the US has with China has nothing to do with democracy, human rights, Taiwanese sovereignty or anything of the sort - only the fact that China is the first serious challenger to US hegemony since the 1950s.
Here's a super simple example of how it's done:
Taiwan’s Air Force Command on Sunday (Oct. 4) stated that a Chinese Y-8 anti-submarine aircraft entered the southwestern corner of Taiwan’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ).
Taiwanese news reports that the dastardly Chinese violated the Taiwanese ADIZ.
Think tanks take up the issue, and issue 'non-partisan reports' on the issue. https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020 ... Report.pdfhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep2613 ... b_contents
Then you get reporting in Western newspaper about "unprecedented Chinese aggression". https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-56728072
But at which point is the Taiwanese ADIZ actually discussed?
Any Chinese flight from Shanghai to Fuzhou or Xiamen violates the Taiwanese ADIZ. A navy flight from mainland Chinese territory, to a Chinese naval vessel in international waters violates the Taiwanese ADIZ. The Taiwanese ADIZ
is far larger than standard, and the result is an easy stream of stories that prove "Chinese aggression".