Mostly sympathetic statements but the problem with any statement from a nondemocratic country is that it can change after a bad lunch by the dictator in charge. The problem addressed by the statement from China is entirely caused by Russia being a dictatorship that allows a single individual to control the military might of an entire nation.
Democracies have safeguards in place that complicates many radical actions, such as starting wars. So the long-term solution to problems like these is to get rid of all dictatorships, as peacefully as possible but with strong determination.
I'd like to see a UDN - a united democratic nations. The base rules should be that no country that has had the same person in the top two political positions of power for more than a decade can be part of the UDN and there should be steep barriers for trade with non-UDN nations.
This should be done while democratic countries still have the largest economies in the world, after that it's too late.
> Democracies have safeguards in place that complicates many radical actions, such as starting wars.
The US gets involved in a new war every 2-3 years [0]. In the 21st century pretty much every time they start something it has been effectively unprovoked. Democracies are notably more bloodthirsty than dictatorships; dictatorships need to preserve their troops at home to suppress dissidents but can't afford for the army generals to be too powerful which leads to a level of self-contradiction and ineffectiveness in undemocratic armies.
It is quite possible that if Russia were a democracy, the only change would be that they prosecuted the war more competently.
I'm not sure where you get this notion that China is not a democratic country. First, people who actually live in China seem to disagree with you. In fact, far more people in China think that their country is more democratic than Americans think US is. https://www.tbsnews.net/world/china-more-democratic-america-...
This is a good overview of how the party is structured, and how people participate in the governing process. This is fundamentally different from how electoral parties work in western countries. https://news.cgtn.com/event/2019/whorunschina/index.html
The party in China is predominantly composed of working class people as opposed to a ruling political class as seen in the west. This goes a long way in helping ensure that the interests of the government align with the interests of the working majority http://www.chinatoday.com/org/cpc/
Furthermore, a study spanning many decades of US policy shows that US can hardly be called a democracy in practical terms:
What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.
> I'm not sure where you get this notion that China is not a democratic country. First, people who actually live in China seem to disagree with you. In fact, far more people in China think that their country is more democratic than Americans think US is. https://www.tbsnews.net/world/china-more-democratic-america-...
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to pretend to be shocked that in a country who's censorship apparatus is not only the worlds best, but well known by the name "The Great Firewall of China"[^1]. The same country who has demonstrated they will jail you for having or expressing thoughts contrary to the ruling party's stance[^2]. That people who live in said country, when asked, agree their country is the best. If I was worried that admitting I have questions about my country would get me sent to an interment camp, for some forced "re-education". I'd likely adamantly agree my country was democratic.
But even I'm mistaken about all the human rights abuses in China, and it's actually a great, misunderstood place. I still wouldn't trust the majority public opinion about something. Because unless I'm curious about sentiment, it's far better to trust and rely on experts, rather than the feelings of an opinion poll. Which is something I'd hope you agree with given you cite a Cambridge study in this very comment.
Ah yes, censorship makes people unable to see whether their lives are good or not. A real genius argument you've mustered here. You should also let people like Manning and Assange know that they shouldn't be worried about being sent into an interment camp.
> Ah yes, censorship makes people unable to see whether their lives are good or not. A real genius argument you've mustered here.
Wow, you're just going to be all sorts of mean today... feels bad...
But I think maybe I was unclear. I wasn't claiming the majority of the population in China was unhappy with their lives, or that we shouldn't believe them when they claim to be happy. My point was, it's bad policy to believe an opinion poll, in this case the arguably uneducated populace opinion of how democratic a country is, over experts in the field.
> You should also let people like Manning and Assange know that they shouldn't be worried about being sent into an interment camp.
Interesting red herring here, but my views on the reasonability of these two prosecutions. At least they were for crimes, not related to "subversion of state power". And the fact that there's really only 2 you can name also speaks volumes compared to the volumes you need for the number arrested by CCP.
You're trying to claim that people in China can't understand whether their government works for them or not. This is a profoundly absurd claim. The fact that you don't understand that is absolutely shocking.
Here's a Harvard research center study of long-term public opinion survey showing that Chinese citizens overwhelmingly approve of their government
All of these western sources, and all agree on this point.
Furthermore, why don't we take a look at the tangible outcomes of the policies of the CPC to see why the government enjoys such high support, and why people in China consider their country democratic. Chinese government practically eliminated extreme poverty. https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-10-17/Graphics-Ending-China-...
In fact, China is the only place in a world where any meaningful poverty reduction is happening. If we take China out of the equation poverty actually increased in real terms:
If we take just one country, China, out of the global poverty equation, then even under the $1.90 poverty standard we find that the extreme poverty headcount is the exact same as it was in 1981.
The $1.90/day (2011 PPP) line is not an adequate or in any way satisfactory level of consumption; it is explicitly an extreme measure. Some analysts suggest that around $7.40/day is the minimum necessary to achieve good nutrition and normal life expectancy, while others propose we use the US poverty line, which is $15.
90% of families in the country own their home giving China one of the highest home ownership rates in the world. What’s more is that 80% of these homes are owned outright, without mortgages or any other leans. https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/03/30/how-peop...
China is most definitely not a democracy. At the same time, it is misunderstood in the West, and it's nothing like the nightmare that most Westerners imagine. Westerners are subjected to an unbelievable level of propaganda when it comes to China. China is neither a utopia nor a dystopia.
Yeah, what do people who actually live in China know about their own country. Some white dude from America who couldn't find China on a map surely knows better. Peak chauvinism here my friend.
> Yeah, what do people who actually live in China know about their own country.
Is it still illegal to know things in China? I read stories all the time about government enforced censorship in China, so I think it's fair to assume that people in China know less about the country than interested parties outside the country, right?
And while I am just a white American dude, thankfully one who can find China on a map. The tone here screams needless hostility.
There is plenty of government censorship happening in US as well. Entire books have been written on this subject. I'm not aware of any country that doesn't have censorship in practice.
I think the idea that people living in a country understand their own lives worse than an outsider is beyond absurd. People can certainly understand whether they are happy with their lives and whether their quality of life is improving or not. Given that vast majority of people in China claim this is the case, I'm going to go with their lived experience over your notions about what life in China is like.
Frankly, the fact that people in US have been convinced that they know better what life in other countries is like than people living there do is a testament to the effectiveness of US propaganda.
If you think the ad hominum is going to bully me into accepting something akin to saying the sky is green and polka dotted then I suggest you change tact.
Please learn what ad hominem means if you're going to use it. Nowhere am I suggesting that your argument is wrong because of your character flaws. I've explained why it's wrong on its own merits.
China was arguably a democracy of sorts before they changed their constitution to allow unlimited terms. Before that, they had two terms. Even though the next leader had to come from the same party, having a party with several million members means they actually had some form of general representation.
Having a peaceful mandatory transfer of power from any individual after a set number of years is not the only requirement but it's one of the most fundamental. China has removed that. The US for all its problems still has that, despite the troubles during the most recent election.
A democracy that has been subverted by corporate interests and is not acting in the best interests of its population still has mechanisms in place by which the population can detect and change such subversions. The forced transition of power being one of the most important.
This may shock you, but plenty of western countries don't have term limits. Merkel had a longer term than Xi for example, and nobody was screaming that Germany turned into a dictatorship as I recall.
Ultimately, a democracy is a government that works in the interest of the majority and that's being held accountable to the majority. Chinese system seems to do a good job of that as evidenced by the fact that quality of life in China continues to improve. People living in China think they have a democracy because they see the government working for them. The same can't be said for many western countries.
Merkel did not have supreme power over Germany and was also supported by officials that do have term limits. The bundestag is re-elected every 4 years and could end Merkel’s chancellorship if she went nuts, and even if she went nuts she couldn’t do much damage since her powers were limited.
Any democracy that gives great power to its leader has term limits (or they are not a democracy for very long). Most democracies have both divided executive powers and also term limits.
but a democracy also has saveguards that protect minorities. Does China have those? I'm thinking about e.g. Uighurs. Also, in a democracy everyone is entitled to have an opinion and say it (good that you can write freely, here!), e.g. criticizing political leaders (like Winnie the pooh) and also freedom of information, e.g. knowing about history (Tiananmen square etc.). Does China offer this?
By your standards, based on how the US treats minorities, antiestablishment groups, and whistleblowers; runs CIA blacksite prisons, gitmo, and regularly invades and overthrows and/or assassinates democratically elected leaders; it isn't a democracy either. Similar things can be said about England.
Uyghurs in China certainly enjoy a lot better lives than indigenous people in US do. Meanwhile, you appear to be confusing your ability to scream into the void with being an actual stakeholder in the political decision making process.
Interestingly enough this footage was removed from youtube recently, which leads to the question of which government is actually practising censorship here.
The Chinese people are probably misinformed. One of the things that stands out from Western (and Indian) experiments in democracy is they are noisy, boisterous, have very loud special interest groups and are appallingly bad at keeping secrets. Leaders spend a lot of time in front of huge crowds.
There simply isn't enough political chatter coming out of China to support the idea that there is a healthy democratic process at work. Although I take no position on how stable their foreign policy may or may not be.
Seems to me that it's far more likely that you are the one who is misinformed as opposed to people living in China. Not sure what this lack of political chatter that you allude to is to be honest. Anybody who actually follows politics in China knows this statement to be utter nonsense.
Do me a favor. Go to China and start an opposition party. Or hand out flyers in Beijing criticizing Xi’s third term. When you come back from the gulags in couple decades, tell us about your experience with Chinese democracy.
Democracy isn't about having more parties, it's about having a government that represents the working majority. China has settled on a political path which is communism, this is why there are communist parties in China, while in US you have capitalist parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_C...
Evidently, you weren't even aware of the fact that there are multiple parties in the country.
It seems like most people in this thread missing the point of this statement.
Section 2 is a clear condemnation of NATO expansion into Ukraine.
>The security of a region should not be achieved by strengthening or expanding military blocs.
I don't think there is any other way to read this. Russia is not expanding a military Bloc. A "military bloc" is a set of countries with military alliance. This is perfectly in line with China's historic perspective on the issue.
>So you are saying China don't want their neighbors to defend themselves?
Absolutely not, and especially so if those neighbors were aligning with the USA. Do you think China would be excited about Taiwan or Mongolia forming a military alliance with the USA? Even if it is defensive?
Read point 2. It clearly condemns defensive Alliances.
“The security of a region should not be achieved by strengthening or expanding military blocs.“
...
“All parties should oppose the pursuit of one's own security at the cost of others' security, prevent bloc confrontation, and work together for peace and stability on the Eurasian Continent.“
I'm not interested in debating Russia's motivations. I'm talking about what China literally said they oppose. They said that they oppose military alliances.
You might disagree with China's perspective or think they are hypocrites and that's fine, but that doesn't change the point of what they said
I like the wishful thinking, even if I think it is impossible that china believes statements such as:
2. Abandoning the Cold War mentality. The security of a country should not be pursued at the expense of others. The security of a region should not be achieved by strengthening or expanding military blocs. The legitimate security interests and concerns of all countries must be taken seriously and addressed properly. There is no simple solution to a complex issue. All parties should, following the vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security and bearing in mind the long-term peace and stability of the world, help forge a balanced, effective and sustainable European security architecture. All parties should oppose the pursuit of one's own security at the cost of others' security, prevent bloc confrontation, and work together for peace and stability on the Eurasian Continent.
, but this text contains zero solutions or suggestions in order to reach one.
>The security of a country should not be pursued at the expense of others. The security of a region should not be achieved by strengthening or expanding military blocs.
The most clear interpretation of this section is a condemnation of NATO expansion into Ukraine. NATO is the "military bloc" described here.
A military bloc is a military alliance of states. Russia invading Ukraine isn't a "strengthening or expansion" of the Russian military bloc.
NATO alliance Ukraine clearly advances the security of the EU and Ukraine itself.
NATO declared that Ukraine could be part of the alliance 6 months before the invasion and Russia immediately started their troop build up.
You could argue that NATO is a defensive Alliance but much of the world does not view it that way. The US uses NATO bases for every war it conducts and houses nuclear and non-nuclear missiles and in NATO countries.
Independent of whether you think NATO is a defensive Alliance, this statement condemns the expansion of alliances even for the purpose of increasing security of the Allied countries. It states it quite plainly that it opposes defensive alliances too
It's utterly dishonest to argue that NATO is a defensive alliance in the face of the fact that NATO has been regularly invading countries for many decades. Yugoslavia, Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria are just a few examples.
I couldn't find reference to NATO involvement in Syria.
Perhaps you mistake countries who are part of NATO to being NATO itself?
"just a few examples".. I expect there are lots more examples you can give? Especially if your point is that NATO is not a defensive alliance and is used to invade and gain territory.
Even if you discount Syria, the rest of the examples are NATO projects. If NATO was a defensive alliance as you claimed then it would not be constantly invading countries. NATO literally murdered and displaced millions of people in wars of aggression. It's absolutely surreal that somebody could possibly respond with I want to see more atrocities before I agree this is an aggressive alliance.
Meanwhile, US is obviously the biggest NATO member and what it does is clearly condoned by the rest of NATO members whether they are involved directly or not.
The Russian leadership's pre-war speeches and essays stated that Ukraine is not a legitimate country and that Ukraine was unfairly carved out of Russian. This is based on a widespread Russian belief that the Ukrainian identity was created by Poland and the Austro-Hungarian Empire to divide Russia.
China and American Conservatives are an demanding immediate halt of Western support for Ukraine followed by "peace talks". What exactly is there to talk about when Russia doesn't even recognize Ukraine's right to exist?
The Russian government's pre-war speeches and essays revealed that they consider all of Ukraine to be an illegitimate state that was unfairly carved out of Russia. They are not just talking about Donbas and Crimea.
Russia has been somewhat effective in misleading the West into thinking that the conquest is only about Donbas and Crimea. Meanwhile Russian officials all the way up to Putin himself have been hinting or outright stating that the war is about annexing all of Ukraine.
I think this is commendable. Of course talk is cheap, but silence can be deadly. I hope that the usual people who live on a steady information diet of MSNBC, CNN and FOX news see this statement and hold western leadership accountable for making their own statements, and acting in support of, peaceful reconciliation.
Peaceful reconciliation is simple: Russia gets out and stays out of Ukraine, Russia extradites those Russians who have committed war crimes, and Russia pays reparations for the rebuilding of Ukraine.
Putin can start doing that today if he's serious about peace. China should demand Putin to do these things if China is serious about peace.
Please bargain with the home invader that says your home is there's now otherwise you're dead. And that's final, no police after the fact. Maybe you can try to convince them you two can split it and live happily ever after inside?
> Russia keeps killing people and handing over the Ukraine to them is no option.
And who suggested that? The question is whether Russia will violate 80 years of superpower precedent by acting with integrity and admitting defeat and willingness to face externally determined consequences or if something else will happen.
Russia has become a lesser state run by a sad little man. If Russia wants to rebuild itself then its best option is to remove Putin and withdraw entirely from Ukraine.
Democracies have safeguards in place that complicates many radical actions, such as starting wars. So the long-term solution to problems like these is to get rid of all dictatorships, as peacefully as possible but with strong determination.
I'd like to see a UDN - a united democratic nations. The base rules should be that no country that has had the same person in the top two political positions of power for more than a decade can be part of the UDN and there should be steep barriers for trade with non-UDN nations.
This should be done while democratic countries still have the largest economies in the world, after that it's too late.