Thank you for sharing your perspective. The main reason why the Western media ignores the widespread victimisation of laobaixing in China and elsewhere is primarily due to a declining overall interest in China. This also applies to the visa issue. Visa-free travel would never have been considered if there was a significant influx of foreigners into China. In fact, the opposite is true.
It may be hard to believe, but up until 2013, editors of major Western mainstream media outlets refused to publish articles that portrayed China in a negative light.
In my opinion, the current situation can be attributed to the implementation of the Central Committee's instructions outlined in Document No. 9, published in April 2013. These instructions untenably accused the West of attempting to bring about regime change in China. Document No. 9 marked the beginning of China's decoupling from the rest of the world in terms of social, political, cultural, and academic spheres. It also led to an unnecessary and excessively aggressive foreign policy stance from China, with lower-level diplomats needlessly engaging in offensive remarks and insults, which would have been unacceptable during Qian Qichen's tenure.
As a result, whether justified or not, China is now generally perceived as hostile. It makes me wonder if the Central Committee had considered the inevitable economic impact Document No. 9 would have.
A very useful comment. Only one quibble is I much doubt that the diplomats and lower level official's statements would have any impact on Western Policy. Western Diplomats represent a wider state and elite interest that has long lost it's ability to negotiate. Just use the (proxy) war with Russia, the defeat and impending collapse of the West's efforts has resulted in a number of statements about a "negotiated" cease fire/armistice/temporary freeze without any attempt to contact the Russians and ignoring all of the Russians stated positions. This is a long way of just saying short of setting Western Tourist on fire in the streets, it really does not matter what China itself does, how could it to such a mind set? That would require considering Chinese civilized and (near) equals.
Regarding the point about diplomacy: Qian Qi Chen was China's foreign minister from 1988 to 1998. During his tenure China's foreign policy had an air of reason, dignity and generosity, no matter how poor and challenged China may have been. In spite of China's perceived weakness, Qian was provenly effective, his style plainly worked. This has been missing during the past 10 years, as a result of domestic ideology, nationalism and patriotism campaigns. It would be advisable, if China's foreign policy makers would revisit the old style and learn from it.
I agree that it may not hurt to be more of a door mat, but I don't think it would achieve much and it isn't to say that acting more Western hasn't gotten some results. However I'll allow I could be wrong, the problem with the untestable is premised on the past predicting the future. (edit: but it's always important to look at both sides of any exchange: (QQC -89-98 (Ronald Reagan - 89, G.H.W. Bush 89-93, Bill Clinton 93-01) vs. "Pivot to East Asia" (Obama/Trump/Genocide Joe)).
Based on my experiences in Xinjiang over the past 35 years, I can share that China faces its own challenges with Muslim extremism. Due to censorship in China, only the most severe terrorist attacks are widely reported. Eyewitnesses from other countries residing in Xinjiang have provided accounts of the situation there.
While the West tackles this issue by utilising illegal offshore prisons for certain individuals, China employs illegal onshore prisons for mass internment. This involves a form of mass re-education following the principles of Communist tradition, where engineering solutions are sought for every problem.
Both approaches involve torture, although the methods and scale differ. Both involve violating not only fundamental, universal human rights, but also grossly violate constitutional civil rights of the respective countries. Both struggle with handling a relatively small number of people who hold disdain and disgust towards the societies they reside in. These individuals believe they are on a divine, righteous, and just path, when they commit acts of violence against "infidels" and willingly sacrifice their lives for it.
It is intriguing to observe how the same individuals we label as "extremists," "terrorists," and "terrorist supporters" in other parts of the world are perceived as "patriots" and "freedom fighters", or at worst "separatists" when they are situated in China's Xinjiang region.
In prisons everywhere you got to give inmates a purpose, something to do. "Prison labour" in the West is called "forced labour" or "slave labour", when it comes to China's Xinjiang.
My attitude towards China is 'right is right', 'wrong is wrong' and 'fair is fair'. Even if the Communists do not reciprocate, as fairness towards any opposition or dissent most definitely is not a Communist concept. 'Seeking truth from fact', however, *is* a Chinese concept that I am glad to follow. It is from the Book of Han, 1,900 years ago.
I agree with you that politicians in the West have thoroughly unlearned over the past 30 years, how to engage deeply dogmatic Communists.
Robert, you might want to look up some of John Mearsheimer's speeches or writings in Australia about how the economic rise of China itself, irrespective of what China may or may not do is a threat to the USA. It's the thinking that drives the pivot to Asia among neo-conservatives and "realists" in the DC beltway.
This last week China top influencer Chairman Rabbit just had a piece on Mearsheimer’s lex fridman podcast, and he argued that Chinese intellectuals should distance themselves from Mearsheimer (for whom there is actually a big fan base in China) I was originally planning to include this piece in my review but the post was too long. Might include it for the next week!
I've noticed in his USA appearances he's a bit less rabid about China must die now that USA has too many conflicts to handle, but his sponsors in Australia are paying him to lay it on thick. Also his audiences there are composed of China bashers and MIC-IMATT profiteers who stand to gain from inflating conflict with China, i.e.: he found a product that sells and sells it, which unfortunately seems to be the model for academia under neoliberalism economics. This is a long about way of saying don't forget his audience, what they represent, when studying this man.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. The main reason why the Western media ignores the widespread victimisation of laobaixing in China and elsewhere is primarily due to a declining overall interest in China. This also applies to the visa issue. Visa-free travel would never have been considered if there was a significant influx of foreigners into China. In fact, the opposite is true.
It may be hard to believe, but up until 2013, editors of major Western mainstream media outlets refused to publish articles that portrayed China in a negative light.
In my opinion, the current situation can be attributed to the implementation of the Central Committee's instructions outlined in Document No. 9, published in April 2013. These instructions untenably accused the West of attempting to bring about regime change in China. Document No. 9 marked the beginning of China's decoupling from the rest of the world in terms of social, political, cultural, and academic spheres. It also led to an unnecessary and excessively aggressive foreign policy stance from China, with lower-level diplomats needlessly engaging in offensive remarks and insults, which would have been unacceptable during Qian Qichen's tenure.
As a result, whether justified or not, China is now generally perceived as hostile. It makes me wonder if the Central Committee had considered the inevitable economic impact Document No. 9 would have.
Keep up the good job!
A very useful comment. Only one quibble is I much doubt that the diplomats and lower level official's statements would have any impact on Western Policy. Western Diplomats represent a wider state and elite interest that has long lost it's ability to negotiate. Just use the (proxy) war with Russia, the defeat and impending collapse of the West's efforts has resulted in a number of statements about a "negotiated" cease fire/armistice/temporary freeze without any attempt to contact the Russians and ignoring all of the Russians stated positions. This is a long way of just saying short of setting Western Tourist on fire in the streets, it really does not matter what China itself does, how could it to such a mind set? That would require considering Chinese civilized and (near) equals.
Xinjiang Muslims are now back on topic as the even though the issue has been thoroughly debunked in the Global South(what an ugly term), because these people believe what their mighty press powers do in Washington reflects how the world thinks. Canada, sigh... just a junior partner in self-deceit. https://www.thecanadafiles.com/articles/canada-spits-on-chinas-sovereignty. None of this has anything to do with what China is or isn't doing, but in the need of the elites to make noise. (edit: and this too, sigh https://www.thecanadafiles.com/articles/canadian-armed-forces-recruiting-anti-communist-uygur-dissidents-etim-terrorists-could-be-allowed-into-military The MIC-IMATT must be fed ).
Regarding the point about diplomacy: Qian Qi Chen was China's foreign minister from 1988 to 1998. During his tenure China's foreign policy had an air of reason, dignity and generosity, no matter how poor and challenged China may have been. In spite of China's perceived weakness, Qian was provenly effective, his style plainly worked. This has been missing during the past 10 years, as a result of domestic ideology, nationalism and patriotism campaigns. It would be advisable, if China's foreign policy makers would revisit the old style and learn from it.
I agree that it may not hurt to be more of a door mat, but I don't think it would achieve much and it isn't to say that acting more Western hasn't gotten some results. However I'll allow I could be wrong, the problem with the untestable is premised on the past predicting the future. (edit: but it's always important to look at both sides of any exchange: (QQC -89-98 (Ronald Reagan - 89, G.H.W. Bush 89-93, Bill Clinton 93-01) vs. "Pivot to East Asia" (Obama/Trump/Genocide Joe)).
Based on my experiences in Xinjiang over the past 35 years, I can share that China faces its own challenges with Muslim extremism. Due to censorship in China, only the most severe terrorist attacks are widely reported. Eyewitnesses from other countries residing in Xinjiang have provided accounts of the situation there.
While the West tackles this issue by utilising illegal offshore prisons for certain individuals, China employs illegal onshore prisons for mass internment. This involves a form of mass re-education following the principles of Communist tradition, where engineering solutions are sought for every problem.
Both approaches involve torture, although the methods and scale differ. Both involve violating not only fundamental, universal human rights, but also grossly violate constitutional civil rights of the respective countries. Both struggle with handling a relatively small number of people who hold disdain and disgust towards the societies they reside in. These individuals believe they are on a divine, righteous, and just path, when they commit acts of violence against "infidels" and willingly sacrifice their lives for it.
It is intriguing to observe how the same individuals we label as "extremists," "terrorists," and "terrorist supporters" in other parts of the world are perceived as "patriots" and "freedom fighters", or at worst "separatists" when they are situated in China's Xinjiang region.
In prisons everywhere you got to give inmates a purpose, something to do. "Prison labour" in the West is called "forced labour" or "slave labour", when it comes to China's Xinjiang.
My attitude towards China is 'right is right', 'wrong is wrong' and 'fair is fair'. Even if the Communists do not reciprocate, as fairness towards any opposition or dissent most definitely is not a Communist concept. 'Seeking truth from fact', however, *is* a Chinese concept that I am glad to follow. It is from the Book of Han, 1,900 years ago.
I agree with you that politicians in the West have thoroughly unlearned over the past 30 years, how to engage deeply dogmatic Communists.
Robert, you might want to look up some of John Mearsheimer's speeches or writings in Australia about how the economic rise of China itself, irrespective of what China may or may not do is a threat to the USA. It's the thinking that drives the pivot to Asia among neo-conservatives and "realists" in the DC beltway.
This last week China top influencer Chairman Rabbit just had a piece on Mearsheimer’s lex fridman podcast, and he argued that Chinese intellectuals should distance themselves from Mearsheimer (for whom there is actually a big fan base in China) I was originally planning to include this piece in my review but the post was too long. Might include it for the next week!
Looking forward to it.
I've noticed in his USA appearances he's a bit less rabid about China must die now that USA has too many conflicts to handle, but his sponsors in Australia are paying him to lay it on thick. Also his audiences there are composed of China bashers and MIC-IMATT profiteers who stand to gain from inflating conflict with China, i.e.: he found a product that sells and sells it, which unfortunately seems to be the model for academia under neoliberalism economics. This is a long about way of saying don't forget his audience, what they represent, when studying this man.