Sorry, have to break this up. Part 1:
> [XJ is] not about GDP, it's about safety and control over security.
If this were the CCP's goal they would grant Uighurs independence--or at least religious freedom. The violence would stop immediately.
Unless it is about GDP and power, then granting independence is a terrible idea.
> Tibet's GDP really blew up
Did the CCP ask the people of Tibet before annexing their land and installing a brutal police state in the name of "GDP growth and development"? This "ends justify the means" thinking is again the exact same logic used to justify insane horrors like the Stalinist industrialization of the USSR.
> the CCP tried US-style multiculturalism, but the Uighurs messed that up.
The anti-religion policies forced on the Uighurs by the CCP are nothing like policies in NYC, LA, or anywhere else in the US. There is no comparison. I'll again point out that the Uighurs were there first, and if the CCP were really interested in multiculturalism and human rights, they would simply leave or erect a liberal system that would protect those rights. But they're obviously not; what they are interested in is, as you say, "forced integration". It's ridiculous to think that policy can be applied without violence. The policy itself is violence.
> A few liberal cities doesn't change the trend.
You were saying there were no examples, so the CCP was justified in perpetrating cultural genocide. I listed several examples to counter. You are moving the goalposts like crazy.
> The blue print works for some urban centres... but nowhere else
It's true that our cities are more diverse than the rest of the country. But it's a common misconception that minorities only live in our cities. More Black Americans live in suburbs and rural areas than cities, and the Hispanic/Latinx representation outside of cities is evening out too (27% to 22%) [1].
Incidentally, it also leads to economic growth [2], your stated chief goal. So the CCP doesn't need to worry, they can simply follow our example.
> multiculturalism is causing undeniable shift in nativism at the national scale, all around the world.
There's no denying there's a lot of passion around multiculturalism and immigration in the US. But not even a plurality of Americans think they're bad. Clear majorities believe the opposite [3]; they think they're our strength, and reinforce our responsibility in taking in refugees [4]. Incredibly, support for refugees has even increased among Republicans.
There's a propaganda campaign largely led by Russia to leverage these issues to cause instability in multicultural societies. Your rhetoric here echos that campaign, and it's similarly incorrect. Americans are proud of our multiculturalism and our freedoms.
> Inequality & Corruption -- the CCP's plans
I admit to not being interested in the CCP's justification for running kangaroo courts (if an anti-corruption process that never holds a trial can be said to use courts), even if that justification is "they used corruption for economic growth", which is a weird kind of incidental confession. It only reemphasizes the CCP's commitment to economic growth and consolidation of power over any kind of human rights.
> The demand for other freedoms doesn't happen until certain levels of economic development is reached.
Then how do you explain nations like Uruguay, Mauritius, and Costa Rica? These countries are "full democracies" according to the Democracy Index (better even than the US), and their nominal GDP per capita is $17,118, $11,693, and $12,015 respectively. Feel free to look through this list [5] for other countries with similar--arguably worse--economic development to China, but with governments far more liberal than the CCP.
I agree China has unique challenges and it's had a rough history. But you simply can't hand wave the CCP's atrocities away with "but the people are poor". There are too many counterexamples for that.
> My view is as long as China has GDP of Iraq there will be no broad pressure to purse values - not democracy mind you - HK instability has ruined the Chinese appetite for that.
This is the opposite lesson they should learn. If they granted the 5 demands--something they could instantly and easily do--HK violence would be over. Same for Tibet and Xinjiang.
> Chinese defense spending is only 2% of GDP, lower than her neighbours.
China's GDP is massive. Cherry picking stats like this is disingenuous. China's military spending is the 2nd highest in the world, after the US.
> Like is the CPC not suppose to have an military suitable to her size or have missiles that can hit Taiwan?
What they should do is not shoot missiles within 30 miles of Taiwan's major cities (3rd Taiwan Strait Crisis), not develop weapons specifically with the aim of invading and annexing Taiwan, and not threaten "profound disaster" when Taiwanese politicians assert independence from China--which it obviously has. The "One China" policy is idiotic, belligerent, and responsible for so much violence.
[1]: https://pewrsr.ch/2qGzUJE
[2]: https://bit.ly/37vpQ73
[3]: https://nyti.ms/2pHZ8qF (sorry paywall, the headline is "75% of Americans Say Immigration is Good For Country, Poll Finds")
[4]: https://pewrsr.ch/35jMEEW
[5]: https://bit.ly/2Oez1ks
