> nevermind that there are constant reforms and improvements to Chinese legal system, the anticorruption drive for instance which the west dismiss as power consolidation but subsequent analysis has concluded to be a broadly genuine effort
This is certainly possible, and I of course applaud anti-corruption policies. We have something of a corruption problem here in the US you may have heard about.
The mistrust comes from the fact that the CCP doesn't respect the rule of law. If we had faith in its legal system, then we would have confidence. But we don't. It's also an odd coincidence that anti-corruption has consolidated Xi's power. Anti-corruption efforts need to be independent, lest they too become corrupt efforts. When they're led by those in power, how can they be anything other than a purge? Here's what Wikipedia--citing Willy Lam from the Jamestown Foundation--says the process is:
> Investigations by the party's disciplinary bodies are not part of the state judicial system. When an official is detained for an investigation, known as Shuanggui, they are essentially placed under house arrest and are isolated from the outside world. The subject often must endure days of grueling interrogation.[50] Data from the first half of 2014 showed that the conviction rate of those who were investigated in that time period to be around 99%.[50] The CCDI and its local counterparts usually gather evidence covertly well in advance of detaining the subject. Generally, when an official is announced to be under investigation, the CCDI has already collected an overwhelming amount of hard evidence. China scholar Willy Lam also wrote that the CCDI has seen a massive expansion of its powers since Xi's ascension, and that it was increasingly involved in the governance of the state. Lam also contended that the CCDI seemed to be deriving most of its power from Xi Jinping personally.
This process is a joke. It cannot be taken seriously.
> Again, when did I justify?
This is a justification:
> Different countries apply different models at different points in development - "rule of law and respect human rights - is simply not a priority for China or many developing nations, where the moral calculus is better spent on attaining other freedoms, chiefly the freedom from want.
Here you are justifying China's violation of human rights because they're a developing nation. Plain as day.
> Your bad behaviour undermines (but doesn't invalidate) your ability to criticize others, which this open letter and many myopic US arguments couched in moralism refuses to comprehend.
If your argument is that the CCP should only listen to perfect governments (or citizens of perfect governments), that's a bad faith argument. If you don't think they need to be perfect, maybe you could list some governments you would listen to, or what standard a government could meet to warrant being an authority on human rights, in your eyes, because numerous governments have spoken out against the CCP's human rights abuses. It's also worth saying that non-governmental organizations like Amnesty International and the UN have as well. Also whistleblowers in the CCP government itself, also people under the CCP's rule, etc. etc. etc.
So let's be honest, you're setting an impossible standard so you don't have to take responsibility.
> Nor was I suggesting the OPs letter was not warranted, just poorly reasoned and articulated.
So how would you articulate it? How do you justify the CCP abducting people, and murdering them by harvesting their organs? Something that, to be clear, the US definitely does not do and has never done.
> The 1/3 (open elections) elected a leader that is rapidly dismantling the global order or undermining allies everywhere.
Yeah that's how elections work. You live with the results, even when you don't like them and even when they're objectively bad. That's the commitment we have to our values. The CCP could learn from our example.
And lest you think I'm being sarcastic here, I'm absolutely not. Free and fair elections are a bedrock principle of any democracy.
> ...anyone with passing knowledge of contemporary US history knows vast components are degrading. Which makes these appeal to values arguments particularly unsuccessful.
You are again arguing that economic development trumps human rights. To be clear, this is the kind of argument used to justify human rights abuses like abduction, slavery, executions, mass censorship, and other horrors.
> You have a much rosier evaluation on the US system than the last 20 year warrants.
In the last 20 years, multiple states have rolled back laws on felon disenfranchisement. We've passed significant criminal justice sentencing reform (we have a long way to go here). We weathered the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We passed Obamacare. We've legalized recreational marijuana use in 11 states and DC, and some of those states are reversing convictions and expunging records. We've had the longest economic expansion on record. Oh and we legalized gay marriage.
Am I all sunshine and roses about everything that's happened in the last 20 years? Absolutely not. I'm no US apologist. I've read A People's History of the US. I proudly accept being an SJW, and I'm often hypercritical of US policy foreign and domestic.
All of which is to say I might be wrong about all kinds of things. I might be overly optimistic. But I'm definitely not uninformed. And even given all that, I can say without hesitation I would never choose CCP-occupied China over the US. And I deeply hope the world won't buy the kinds of arguments you're making. In fact, I hope you come around too :) Everyone can change.
