Re:Without proof, is Huawei still a national security threat?
by vivekd on Sunday January 27, 2019 @11:40PM
(#19015365)
The "we're a democracy and they're not" excuse is starting becoming a bit tired. China is hardly a single leader dictatorship the way Libya and Zimbabwe were. And America has no qualms playing it close with real and insane dictatorships like Saudi Arabia. We can see Presidents like Obama posing for pictures with insane Tyrants like Yahya Jammeh who threatened to jail anyone who questioned his claims that he developed a cure for aids. The world situation is a lot more complex than we like to admit. And I'm not entirely sure that democracy is the best or only solution. Dictatorship worked very well for South Korea under Park Chung-hee and Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Without proof, is Huawei still a national security threat?
by threeseed on Sunday January 27, 2019 @11:47PM
(#19015381)
> China is hardly a single leader dictatorship
It literally is.
China removed term limits so Xi Jinping can be there for the rest of his life.
Re:Without proof, is Huawei still a national security threat?
by vivekd on Sunday January 27, 2019 @11:51PM
(#19015397)
He's not a single leader ruling on whim like Mao or Gaddafi. There is still the party that meets to discuss things and the standing committees. They have a system. I wish that system made more leeway for individual rights, but apparently the people of China don't and that's their right to have the sort of government they please and not my place to question how they run their country.
Re:Without proof, is Huawei still a national security threat?
by gamblor956 on Monday January 28, 2019 @12:08AM
(#19015431)
I think you need to read up on China's political structure before you comment further. The Politiburo was a check on the premier in name only, and now that term limits have been abolished, not at all. Now it's just a rubber stamp.
Re:Without proof, is Huawei still a national security threat?
by vivekd on Monday January 28, 2019 @12:38AM
(#19015519)
Why are people making a big deal out of this term limits thing.
1. The party's constitution says that no position is for life. There is mandatory retirement at age 68 (Xi is currently 65)
2. The General secretary position has never had term limits. So Xi is no better or worse position than any of his predecessors. President in China is more symbolic than anything else.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/04/...