All: we ban accounts that foment nationalistic flamewar on HN, so please don't do that here. If you're going to comment on an inflammatory topic like this, do so with respect for the opposing point of view. If you can't muster any such respect, and only want to smite enemies, this is not the web site you're looking for; please find another.
> If you're going to comment on an inflammatory topic like this, do so with respect for the opposing point of view. If you can't muster any such respect, and only want to smite enemies
So you're saying we should respect the views like:
1. the members of particular ethnicity and religion are terrorists, and
2. that mass-imprisonment of innocent members of an ethnicity is the correct response to the fear of terrorism from them?
Because those are some of the views expressed in this thread:
This breaks the site guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." It also exemplifies what I just asked people to stop.
> In September, a Chinese official at the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva said the West could learn from his country’s program of vocational training. “If you do not say it’s the best way, maybe it’s the necessary way to deal with Islamic or religious extremism, because the West has failed in doing so,” said Li Xiaojun, the director of publicity at the Bureau of Human Rights Affairs of the State Council Information Office.
> The Chinese government has been trying to change the ethnic balance by shifting members of the majority Han Chinese into the region. [...]
> Photos of ancestors and prayer mats usually on display in Kazakh homes were all gone. They were “burned,” the locals told him. “These items,” he said, “were replaced with photos of the Chinese president and Chinese flags.”
As someone unfamiliar with the situation, a question I still have is whether this is something unique or unusual for the Chinese government, or how they'd treat any other mass of people following some organized ideology or creed they saw as competing with their totalitarianism.
E.g. I've heard about their efforts to shift the ethnic balance in Tibet, has that been followed-up with similar indoctrination efforts?
> ”... how they'd treat any other mass of people following some organized ideology or creed they saw as competing with their totalitarianism”
Falun Gong is the blueprint for this: a homegrown spiritual practice that gained too much popularity in the ‘90s and the authorities turned against it. Human rights groups estimate hundreds of thousands are still in “re-education” camps.
Vancouver, BC / Richmond BC area here, which has a >30% Chinese-ethnicity population: Whenever Falun Gong makes the press here, there is a relatively active English language social media astroturfing campaign, and fake news campaign that has been going around for at least 15-20 years which attempts to equate Falun Gong with known harmful cults which Westerners are familiar with. I've seen it compared to Heaven's Gate, the Branch Davidians, and Jim Jones' Peoples' Temple.
As best I can determine it's a buddhist/meditation group that disagrees with the Chinese government on principles of fundamental human rights.
Let's don't bring them on the table. Just like you don't bring Peoples Temple or Branch Davidians or any other cult onto the table when you talking about such topic.
I actually knew some people who was practicing Falun Gong before the crack down (And some still practicing it after). If you want to paint a portrait of those people, just image an uneducated man/woman at age around 40~50, who probably encountered some misfortunes in their life and became vulnerable enough to take anything into their head without a thought, and act upon that thought.
They're those people who would also actually believed they can receive superpower from a tinfoil hat (Well, not actually a tinfoil hat, but guess what, they have upgraded version of that [0]), meditation, or, maybe, killing themselves/others.
Oh, also, do you know the "Eastern Lightning"[1]? Don't bring them as well.
A good predictor of whether the Chinese government would react to a group is the threat that group poses on the national integrity of China. Any separatist/ independence movement will be harshly treated. You can find many examples of this. There is nothing the West that says or do that will change this policy.
> A good predictor of whether the Chinese government would react to a group is the threat that group poses on the national integrity of China.
I think the more accurate interpretation, which applies to authoritarian or totalitarian power, is that they don't tolerate competing power structures. A competing power structure, whether a political group, a labor union, a spiritual organization, can easily become a political organization and therefore a threat to the power of the government. If they are organized and independent, they are a threat. The government's motive is to protect and enhance its own power.
Think about the Falun Gong: Certainly they were no threat to the "national integrity" (whatever that means precisely) of China. Also consider labor and human rights movements, who have no interest in separatism. In fact, democracies are much more stable governments in general, and are more likely to preserve "national integrity".
Think also about the Chinese military, which IIRC is under control of the Communist Party, not the government. They are careful to not allow it to be an independent power structure - an independent military has been the downfall of many authoritarian governments (usually replacing them with another authoritarian government).
The part about incentivizing / cooking up other ways to relocate Han majority citizens is not unique or unusual. According to many reports, it's been going on in Hong Kong and Taiwan for a long time.
It's not unique or unusual for dictatorships in general. The Soviet Union, for example, worked hard at indoctrination, as did Mao. Arguably, any propaganda is indoctrination.
Xinjiang is an autonomous region, too. Tibet has been thoroughly “Hanified,” though you’re right that it hasn’t been as dramatic as in Xinjiang. The same is true for other ethnic minorities, too. Traditional costumes are kept to pay lip service to plurality, and there are some parks that feel more like Epcot Center exhibits. It’s not all due to government intervention, but China’s ethnic minorities are disappearing.
Well until now minority groups got preferential treatment as compared to Han Chinese. You will notice that the ethnic Uyghur Xinjiang governor actually supporting the camps.
Otherwise now the Party is treating the same way they treat normal Han Chinese who have different thoughts on the CCP. However not everyone in Xinjiang is affected, mostly the religious.
Taking a moment from the brutality here, this really makes me appreciate how much commercial satellite photography levels the playing field against state actors. Nobody can realistically control the space over their country and space access is sufficiently cheap that we can affordably monitor the entire surface of the earth for these kinds of events. Such an undertaking would have been impossible without state level assets a few short decades ago. These satellites are also nice because they're not capable of tracking individual people effectively or otherwise providing a route for significant invasions of privacy. In short, satellites let us see over the hedge without the risk of retaliation and with a lower likelihood of abuse against private individuals.
wrt privacy risks: this may be true for now, but it’s a matter of resolution. with time, satellite proliferation and camera tech advances could realistically make it an issue.
The topic is so brutal I feel bad pointing out how artistic they made it render in mobile. I’m so used to short articles now that I kept getting surprised by each step they took in actually doing research. Great job all around.
On the design / presentation: One thing that jumped out at me was the odd choice to use the phrase "1 million square meters - roughly the size of 140 soccer fields.". Are they trying to make "one square kilometer, - roughly[...]" sound more dramatic than it needs to?
Outside of the USA, floor space of buildings is typically measured in square meters. If you have a 15 floor office tower its gross and rentable square feet will be listed in square meters. This allows for comparison to other known structures.
out of curiosity, what do you think it'll take for anyone to do something?
the marginalized groups in the 1940s examples weren't popular anywhere, until stumbling upon the true nature of the camps for other reasons and liberation, so I see some parallels here
We can’t really do anything for the Kurds in Turkey or people in South Sudan but you think we can somehow get China to change behavior? Not a chance. We can’t even act against Russia or Iran either, or even North Korea without tremendous repercussions.
Look at Venezuela. It’s starving its own people for political reasons, they have some oil, but we could survive without it... do you think we’re gonna go down there and do anything about it? Nope!
> do you think we’re gonna go down there and do anything about it? Nope!
You sound like you think that we aren't going to do anything because we just don't care, or at least don't care enough. But "doing anything about it" in Venezuela would mean an invasion. It would mean killing a bunch of people in the name of helping people. (Granted, at least some of those killed would be part of the problem. Still, killing people to help people has a pretty bad track record and a very moral foundation.)
In China, it would mean all-out war with a near-peer nation, which would probably result in nuclear war. While what China is doing is horrible, nobody wants to stop them at that price, and not because we don't care enough.
Venezuela is not starving its people for "political reasons". At least not anymore. That strikes me as a US talking point more than fact. Sure, the politics and economics of the leadership crushed the economy, but at this point, sticking with the program is nothing more than a megalomaniacal dictator clinging to power. Same old story
Do the non-muslim Chinese people want to do anything? If they don't, I don't see much happening here. No one seems to be able to exert serious international pressure on Chinese politics. It's a pretty hopeless cause, for me.
Seems like political and economic isolation for China might be effective, but who wants to do that when they offer the world cheap labor and manufacturing?
Well, Mike Pence denounced china on October 3 while speaking at the Hudson Institute[0]. He specifically mentioned the million people in detention in Xinjiang. I've provided a link to the video in case you want to watch.
Is he ready to offer the affected Uyghurs (Or even some large percentage of them) asylum in the US? I'm sure that if he made that offer, China would gladly exile them.
The truth is that China is too big, to economically important, and to powerful militarily for either countries or companies to do anything except talk or write.
So I except nobody will do anything that has any impact.
What makes you think that something can be done? Playing international police hasn't worked out since World War II. Having been to Xinjiang, racial tensions are high. It isn't out of the question that Chinese oppression is the only thing preventing the region breaking out into civil war. Who would want to take responsibility for that fallout?
A more recent parallel, the USA opening the doors to the WTO to China long after the Dalai Lama fled, and the next Dalai Lama imprisoned as a child so the government of China can start selecting the next leaders of Tibetan Buddhism.
NATO intervened to stop the war crimes in the Yugoslav civil war mostly because it was right on the doorstep to Western Europe. Other Arab countries had already intervened years earlier with some people/weapons since the arms embargo had to some extent disproportionately affected the Muslim populations (one common thread with this gulag). This aid /intervention was only possible due to the geographic circumstances of the former Yugoslavia - no outside forces are going to step into China, and stuff like the Opium Wars/forced open doors afterwards means very few in China want foreigners to come in and help.
I hate saying this, but China has gotten itself in a position where people won't do anything to it...even where people can't do anything to it.
Let's think about an individual/NGO-style boycott where you encourage a billion people to boycott Chinese goods. Could you even boycott Chinese goods? What phone would you buy? What computer? Even if the place of final assembly isn't China, what percentage of the parts would be Chinese?
If we're talking about countries doing something, it's hard to look past the huge economic ties in place. We'd be talking about really a drop in the S&P 500 that would make every recession look tiny. Apple needs China for iPhones, Amazon needs China for goods for its retail operation and server components (as well as Microsoft, Google, etc.), Huawei powers most of Europe's mobile infrastructure, Volvo is the largest company in Sweden and Chinese owned, Foreign Direct Investment from the US to China topped $100B in 2017... Would the US or EU take such a huge hit to their economy for the Uighurs?
As you noted, the Allies didn't come for the Jews. They came to contain a Germany that was taking over Europe. The Soviet Union was content to let Germany do as it pleased until it was attacked itself. The UK and France tried appeasing the Nazis while they took over Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Memelland. The US didn't join the war in Europe until Germany declared war against the US.
If China doesn't attack Taiwan, Japan, or India, I can't see us doing anything. Tibet happened and while we might have had some strong words about Tibet, we haven't done anything about it.
Plus, to be honest, it's hard to see us doing a lot when the right-wing in Europe and the US has started replacing Jews as their go-to "it's their fault" target with Muslims. Hatred is a terrible thing, but there has been growing anti-Muslim sentiment. While that doesn't rule out saving people, I think it does make it less likely.
This isn't meant to say that we shouldn't do anything. It's more that I don't think we (collectively, governmentally) have the will to do something given the huge economic ties in play.
Russia might provide some clues, but it's also important to remember that our economic ties with Russia are a lot simpler: Russia has natural resources. While we have applied some sanctions, Russia is still in Ukraine. Given the level of our reliance on China, I can't imagine we will bring might strong enough for China to really change.
I would love for someone to change my mind on this comment. I really hope this comment is just totally wrong.
I think nuclear weapons have significantly changed how large nation-states approach disagreements. :) Look at how the Cold War was won, and know that these things are played out over decades. iPhones might be assembled in China today, but that is clearly a huge liability going forward.
for many of us all we have to do is look no further than that phone in our hands and realize if we aren't even willing to forgo the luxury items that are sourced from this country then why should we hold our leaders to such standards?
edit: we had stories rallying for the workers protesting Google making software for the Chinese, why not rally against any manufacturer making product there? The tech sector is a place where it can bring pressure
The only thing that would probably have a chance of working is a large global coalition willing to take action simultaneously to sanction China's economy to the tune of at least being equivalent to a trillion dollars annually (whatever form that would need to take, a combination of targeting their companies, exports, imports, access to natural resources, banks, high level politicians, et al.). It would require at a minimum the US/Canada + EU + Japan + South Korea + AU/NZ. That gets you the majority of the global economy.
The big problem: it involves the world's consumers willingly punching themselves in the face at the same time. It might even throw the global economy into a deep recession and as a consequence kill a lot more people than the gulags are likely to. There are a lot of fallout problems in dealing with China, not least because they've historically shown a willingness to distribute any necessary pain upon their people to achieve party goals. There'd also have to be an elaborate verification program put in place, so China wouldn't continue their agenda in a more subtle manner; I don't see that sort of invasive foreign observation ever being allowed.
They've made a very conscious choice to eliminate the Uighur culture, as they did with Tibet before it. They have an end goal in mind, it's hard to imagine stopping them without upping the risks very high. Frankly I'm skeptical there is any way to stop them, I think they'd just take the pain and make it an us vs them conflict to convince the domestic population to absorb it (insert slogans here to drive loyalty during the great fight against the imperialists).
> It might even throw the global economy into a deep recession and as a consequence kill a lot more people than the gulags are likely to.
This isn't the last gulag of the CCP. We would never know how many future atrocities were prevented with proper diplomatic and economic sanctions against them.
I think you're right, and it illustrates a fundamental problem of the capitalist system—it is incapable of making value judgements on its own. "What about consumer choices?". Consumers, in general, are also not making value judgements when they buy something. Perhaps purchasing taps into something primal in us that we cannot intellectually override in the moment, just muse about after the fact. To wit, the market for ethical goods is miniscule, and most pick the product with the highest perceived cost/value ratio. What remains is government. While we don't tend to make value judgements when we shop, we do make them when we vote. Which is why it's crucial that governments have the power to regulate corporations' actions, also abroad.
What makes you think that the world cares so much about Uighur culture? Myanmar rohingya crisis is a clear proof that the world is not very keen to fight for human rights even when the cost is low (compared with a China conflict).
And this is the hard truth: If the rohingya were to be displaced in big numbers in the US or any of the developed countries(maybe with a few exceptions) I'm pretty sure they would be turned back/stopped at the border.
> out of curiosity, what do you think it'll take for anyone to do something?
Given that both our politicians and corporations are content with helping China cover this up at best, or are complicit in identification and imprisonment of the Uyghurs at worst, I don't know.
Perhaps if China invaded Taiwan or enabled NK in an attack on South Korea,
it would wake Western interests up.
I read someone not sure what one can. In fact there is something Americans can do instead of just reading this news:
Write to your congressman/woman and senator about this and support the motion (forget his name) to sanction the chinese officials and frozen of their assets in America. And promote this sanction to uk, a/Nz, Eu.
Better but may be too ambitious not allow their family and they go come to study or live.
That hurts. Really hurt.
Sanction anyone support any electronic survillence work ...
Support HONG kong and Taiwan for its democracy drive and enforce both us-hk and us-t rigourously.
Now, out of desperation, if some Uighurs take arms, and try to fight back militarily, everyone would say, oh, it's the Muslims doing their terrorism thing again. China was right all along.
I think you are totally flipped the excuse and consequence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_conflict
If Uighurs is a peaceful land, Chinese gov would never deploy so many military there. And also to be clear, China has zero tolerance for the separation, either it's Taiwan, HongKong, Macau, Uighur or Tibet, and China is not a liberal land, so the government's policy get the majority support.
Being a freedom and justice loving classical liberal, it pains me every time I read details of the Chinese government’s treatment of Uyghurs.
What I fear though is that any treatment that I would approve of would be ineffective in preventing radicalization. Is there any example of ethical and tolerant treatment that manages to prevent the spread of Salafi radicalism once it has taken root? In adjacent Pakistan we are seeing millions of people throwing a fit because a Christian woman accused of blasphemy and sentenced to death was finally ruled innocent and released after 10 years in prison. How can China avoid ending up like this and avoid having to deal with its own version of the Taliban? Is there any country that has pulled it off without resorting to brutal totalitarianism?
Indonesia seems to be doing OK. Though arguably Suharto did some of the "brutal totalitarianism" bit.... That said, that's over 20 years in the past, and I'm not sure radicalism has really been spreading that much in Indonesia. It exists, of course; it's just not clear to me that it's getting stronger.
Until the last few years, I would have said Turkey was doing OK, even with the various military coups it's had; whether those count as "brutal" is an interesting question. The last few years, Turkey has definitely turned in a totalitarian direction, though I don't think combating radical islam was the cause.
I _think_ Bangladesh has done more or less ok. But I don't know much about it, to be honest.
Malaysia I think has done ok. So has Morocco.
Again, none of these completely lack radical Islamists. But that would be a pretty high bar to clear (e.g. the US probably doesn't clear it, and definitely doesn't clear it if you replace "Islamists" with "Christians", but keep the radicalness).
Readit News
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
So you're saying we should respect the views like:
1. the members of particular ethnicity and religion are terrorists, and
2. that mass-imprisonment of innocent members of an ethnicity is the correct response to the fear of terrorism from them?
Because those are some of the views expressed in this thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18565634
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18565128
Tolerance and respect of such views is shameful.
Since you've been using this account primarily for ideological and national battle, I've banned it. This is in the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
You've been creating accounts to break HN's rules with for a long time. Please don't do that anymore, or we'll ban your main account as well.
> In September, a Chinese official at the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva said the West could learn from his country’s program of vocational training. “If you do not say it’s the best way, maybe it’s the necessary way to deal with Islamic or religious extremism, because the West has failed in doing so,” said Li Xiaojun, the director of publicity at the Bureau of Human Rights Affairs of the State Council Information Office.
> The Chinese government has been trying to change the ethnic balance by shifting members of the majority Han Chinese into the region. [...]
> Photos of ancestors and prayer mats usually on display in Kazakh homes were all gone. They were “burned,” the locals told him. “These items,” he said, “were replaced with photos of the Chinese president and Chinese flags.”
As someone unfamiliar with the situation, a question I still have is whether this is something unique or unusual for the Chinese government, or how they'd treat any other mass of people following some organized ideology or creed they saw as competing with their totalitarianism.
E.g. I've heard about their efforts to shift the ethnic balance in Tibet, has that been followed-up with similar indoctrination efforts?
Falun Gong is the blueprint for this: a homegrown spiritual practice that gained too much popularity in the ‘90s and the authorities turned against it. Human rights groups estimate hundreds of thousands are still in “re-education” camps.
As best I can determine it's a buddhist/meditation group that disagrees with the Chinese government on principles of fundamental human rights.
No it's not. It's an espionage program funded by Taiwan.
Did you see any spiritual practice attack capitol hill? I think not.
Let's don't bring them on the table. Just like you don't bring Peoples Temple or Branch Davidians or any other cult onto the table when you talking about such topic.
I actually knew some people who was practicing Falun Gong before the crack down (And some still practicing it after). If you want to paint a portrait of those people, just image an uneducated man/woman at age around 40~50, who probably encountered some misfortunes in their life and became vulnerable enough to take anything into their head without a thought, and act upon that thought.
They're those people who would also actually believed they can receive superpower from a tinfoil hat (Well, not actually a tinfoil hat, but guess what, they have upgraded version of that [0]), meditation, or, maybe, killing themselves/others.
Oh, also, do you know the "Eastern Lightning"[1]? Don't bring them as well.
[0] https://www.flickr.com/photos/undersound/23239355 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Lightning#Zhaoyuan_McD...
I think the more accurate interpretation, which applies to authoritarian or totalitarian power, is that they don't tolerate competing power structures. A competing power structure, whether a political group, a labor union, a spiritual organization, can easily become a political organization and therefore a threat to the power of the government. If they are organized and independent, they are a threat. The government's motive is to protect and enhance its own power.
Think about the Falun Gong: Certainly they were no threat to the "national integrity" (whatever that means precisely) of China. Also consider labor and human rights movements, who have no interest in separatism. In fact, democracies are much more stable governments in general, and are more likely to preserve "national integrity".
Think also about the Chinese military, which IIRC is under control of the Communist Party, not the government. They are careful to not allow it to be an independent power structure - an independent military has been the downfall of many authoritarian governments (usually replacing them with another authoritarian government).
ed. Tibet too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification
They are taking a slower approach there. They were granted "autonomy" in the past.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_China
Otherwise now the Party is treating the same way they treat normal Han Chinese who have different thoughts on the CCP. However not everyone in Xinjiang is affected, mostly the religious.
the marginalized groups in the 1940s examples weren't popular anywhere, until stumbling upon the true nature of the camps for other reasons and liberation, so I see some parallels here
Look at Venezuela. It’s starving its own people for political reasons, they have some oil, but we could survive without it... do you think we’re gonna go down there and do anything about it? Nope!
You sound like you think that we aren't going to do anything because we just don't care, or at least don't care enough. But "doing anything about it" in Venezuela would mean an invasion. It would mean killing a bunch of people in the name of helping people. (Granted, at least some of those killed would be part of the problem. Still, killing people to help people has a pretty bad track record and a very moral foundation.)
In China, it would mean all-out war with a near-peer nation, which would probably result in nuclear war. While what China is doing is horrible, nobody wants to stop them at that price, and not because we don't care enough.
Why would we (the US, Nato?) do anything about that? Compared to Colombia, Guyana, Brazil, Peru, Argentina, Panama etc
I just want to read the articulate logic
Seems like political and economic isolation for China might be effective, but who wants to do that when they offer the world cheap labor and manufacturing?
Deleted Comment
[0] https://youtu.be/aeVrMniBjSc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769#/media/F...
Deleted Comment
Of course, he's not, though.
Dead Comment
So I except nobody will do anything that has any impact.
NATO intervened to stop the war crimes in the Yugoslav civil war mostly because it was right on the doorstep to Western Europe. Other Arab countries had already intervened years earlier with some people/weapons since the arms embargo had to some extent disproportionately affected the Muslim populations (one common thread with this gulag). This aid /intervention was only possible due to the geographic circumstances of the former Yugoslavia - no outside forces are going to step into China, and stuff like the Opium Wars/forced open doors afterwards means very few in China want foreigners to come in and help.
Let's think about an individual/NGO-style boycott where you encourage a billion people to boycott Chinese goods. Could you even boycott Chinese goods? What phone would you buy? What computer? Even if the place of final assembly isn't China, what percentage of the parts would be Chinese?
If we're talking about countries doing something, it's hard to look past the huge economic ties in place. We'd be talking about really a drop in the S&P 500 that would make every recession look tiny. Apple needs China for iPhones, Amazon needs China for goods for its retail operation and server components (as well as Microsoft, Google, etc.), Huawei powers most of Europe's mobile infrastructure, Volvo is the largest company in Sweden and Chinese owned, Foreign Direct Investment from the US to China topped $100B in 2017... Would the US or EU take such a huge hit to their economy for the Uighurs?
As you noted, the Allies didn't come for the Jews. They came to contain a Germany that was taking over Europe. The Soviet Union was content to let Germany do as it pleased until it was attacked itself. The UK and France tried appeasing the Nazis while they took over Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Memelland. The US didn't join the war in Europe until Germany declared war against the US.
If China doesn't attack Taiwan, Japan, or India, I can't see us doing anything. Tibet happened and while we might have had some strong words about Tibet, we haven't done anything about it.
Plus, to be honest, it's hard to see us doing a lot when the right-wing in Europe and the US has started replacing Jews as their go-to "it's their fault" target with Muslims. Hatred is a terrible thing, but there has been growing anti-Muslim sentiment. While that doesn't rule out saving people, I think it does make it less likely.
This isn't meant to say that we shouldn't do anything. It's more that I don't think we (collectively, governmentally) have the will to do something given the huge economic ties in play.
Russia might provide some clues, but it's also important to remember that our economic ties with Russia are a lot simpler: Russia has natural resources. While we have applied some sanctions, Russia is still in Ukraine. Given the level of our reliance on China, I can't imagine we will bring might strong enough for China to really change.
I would love for someone to change my mind on this comment. I really hope this comment is just totally wrong.
edit: we had stories rallying for the workers protesting Google making software for the Chinese, why not rally against any manufacturer making product there? The tech sector is a place where it can bring pressure
The big problem: it involves the world's consumers willingly punching themselves in the face at the same time. It might even throw the global economy into a deep recession and as a consequence kill a lot more people than the gulags are likely to. There are a lot of fallout problems in dealing with China, not least because they've historically shown a willingness to distribute any necessary pain upon their people to achieve party goals. There'd also have to be an elaborate verification program put in place, so China wouldn't continue their agenda in a more subtle manner; I don't see that sort of invasive foreign observation ever being allowed.
They've made a very conscious choice to eliminate the Uighur culture, as they did with Tibet before it. They have an end goal in mind, it's hard to imagine stopping them without upping the risks very high. Frankly I'm skeptical there is any way to stop them, I think they'd just take the pain and make it an us vs them conflict to convince the domestic population to absorb it (insert slogans here to drive loyalty during the great fight against the imperialists).
This isn't the last gulag of the CCP. We would never know how many future atrocities were prevented with proper diplomatic and economic sanctions against them.
Deleted Comment
Given that both our politicians and corporations are content with helping China cover this up at best, or are complicit in identification and imprisonment of the Uyghurs at worst, I don't know.
Perhaps if China invaded Taiwan or enabled NK in an attack on South Korea, it would wake Western interests up.
Write to your congressman/woman and senator about this and support the motion (forget his name) to sanction the chinese officials and frozen of their assets in America. And promote this sanction to uk, a/Nz, Eu.
Better but may be too ambitious not allow their family and they go come to study or live.
That hurts. Really hurt.
Sanction anyone support any electronic survillence work ...
Support HONG kong and Taiwan for its democracy drive and enforce both us-hk and us-t rigourously.
Do you seriously think, given the way he's been treating them, that ANY of those countries/groups would go out of their way to help Trump? 0 chance.
What I fear though is that any treatment that I would approve of would be ineffective in preventing radicalization. Is there any example of ethical and tolerant treatment that manages to prevent the spread of Salafi radicalism once it has taken root? In adjacent Pakistan we are seeing millions of people throwing a fit because a Christian woman accused of blasphemy and sentenced to death was finally ruled innocent and released after 10 years in prison. How can China avoid ending up like this and avoid having to deal with its own version of the Taliban? Is there any country that has pulled it off without resorting to brutal totalitarianism?
Until the last few years, I would have said Turkey was doing OK, even with the various military coups it's had; whether those count as "brutal" is an interesting question. The last few years, Turkey has definitely turned in a totalitarian direction, though I don't think combating radical islam was the cause.
I _think_ Bangladesh has done more or less ok. But I don't know much about it, to be honest.
Malaysia I think has done ok. So has Morocco.
Again, none of these completely lack radical Islamists. But that would be a pretty high bar to clear (e.g. the US probably doesn't clear it, and definitely doesn't clear it if you replace "Islamists" with "Christians", but keep the radicalness).