All large nation states are guilty of aggression, that's how you become a large nation state.
Please don't move the goalposts. We're talking about the current State of China, which came into being in the mid 20th century, and is thus a lot younger than the current US state which traces its founding to around 1776. By that measure, the US has been involved in far, far more invasions and wars than the Chinese state.
For Tibetan, the government freed them from the old cult (you may don't know their nobles used to wear slave skin clothes and drink from human skull bowl), build railways accelerate their economy, lower the university score for them to help them get educated, enfranchise them to vote, propose new proposal in People's Congress, etc. So how do they feel about their government? I mean those Tibetans who live in China.
What's more, Tibetan, Muslims in western China, they are all Chinese people, so their issue IS the Chinese government's own business.
Even if you think that it's desirable for the government to try to accelerate secularization with its "re-education camps," the implementation is guaranteed to cause a lot of suffering. The rushed timeline for construction, involuntary detention in the resulting cramped quarters, guards and teachers who were hired quickly with essentially zero training... all of this is just setting things up for physical and psychological abuse of inmates. Just look at the cases of 杨永信 and 豫章书院 torturing children to cure them of internet addiction to see how far people are willing to go if there's no oversight and their aims are supported by mainstream opinion. That the government tries so hard to suppress negative reporting doesn't exactly inspire confidence that abuse will be prosecuted.
My personal prediction is that the majority of inmates are going to come out of "re-education" traumatized and with a justified hatred of the government. I'm sure they'd prefer it if the government stuck to their business of modernizing the economy, instead of trying to force loyalty in the most ham-fisted way possible.
1. While the Constitution of the People's Republic of China does protect religious freedom, this is only under the condition that the religious beliefs in question do not disturb the social order, cause bodily harm or obstruct the national education system. That means in practice, people will be detained for beliefs that are considered too extremist.
2. Would you believe me that they exist if I called them "education centers" instead? Try searching for 教培中心 in http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2019-03/18/c_1124247196.ht... It is described quite clearly that people can be brought to these centers even if their extremist beliefs do not otherwise amount to a crime.
3. I specifically brought up "杨永信" and "豫章书院" because they don't involve minorities. I didn't mean that they were mainstream in the sense that most people would approve of their methods, but there's definitely widespread concern about students spending too much time on the internet and too little studying. It's just that most schools take a less brutal approach to the problem and confiscate their student's phones instead of using torture.
Given your statement that
> Many Chinese people hope the government put an end to "杨永信" and "豫章书院", but I don't know why they don't.
consider that many Uyghur people hope the government put an end to the conditions in those "education centers" and don't know why they don't.
4. Do tell me if any of this is unconvincing. I'm still working on an airtight argument that is acceptable for someone with the perspective that the CPC is trying to do good in principle.
3. Your refute is valid only if the presumption is real, I applause sincerely for you, but how can you stand for many Uyghur? I live with Chinese every day so I can present more or less their thought, did you get in touch of some Uyghur or you just surmise their thought from, let me cite Trump, "Fake News"?
4. I really hope to read your airtight, immaculate, irrefutable argument!
Maybe not, but not all beliefs that are defined as extremist are of the stabby kind. It's a bit hard to get information on which specific beliefs are covered; http://www.xjnj.gov.cn/jgdj/flfg/201502/09174829hwdu.html talks mostly in general terms, but does explicitly mention "活佛转世". Belief in reincarnation is not exactly a violent ideology, but it does create a separate hierarchy (of reincarnated lamas) that does not directly answer to the CPC, which I guess falls under the "social order" exception. Also, various kinds of headscarves and beards seem to be forbidden alongside the Turkish/East Turkestan flags: http://xjtzb.gov.cn/2017-06/19/1121167392_14978365485711n.jp... (I realize the image is watermarked by some random WeChat account; but the reposting by the Xinjiang branch of the United Front seems like an endorsement.)
> maybe even teach him some skills so he can make a living and become a part of society? The latter is exactly what "education centers" do according to the link.
I don't have a problem with that in itself, but that's contingent on the implementation. Making the plan work requires lots of resources, not just the one-off construction of buildings, but also teachers, guards and other supporting staff. There's already a shortage of teachers in poorer regions of China, so where are all those teachers coming from? How are they trained? The inmates aren't going to be economically productive for some time, so how are their living expenses paid? What about the loss of income to their family members?
These are all difficult problems to solve, and I'm not sure the Chinese government has actually solved them.
> the center is not a prison or Auschwitz (go back home regularly)
I agree that comparisons with concentration camps are not appropriate, because the purpose is not genocide, but ideological assimilation. However, I'm not too sure about the "going home" part. Only one of the three groups are voluntary signups; what's the point of sending someone there involuntarily if they can just go? They might even end up stabbing someone.
> did you get in touch of some Uyghur or you just surmise their thought from, let me cite Trump, "Fake News"?
Unfortunately, Uyghurs are a bit rare where I live. It's certainly possible that the Uyghur and Kazakh Muslims who have appeared as eyewitnesses in Western media are just making everything up, or maybe their experience was simply atypical. After all, among a million people, finding one who had to live in a room with ten people because the new dorms weren't finished yet, or who was hit by a frustrated teacher, or who was raped by a drunk guard, is kind of to be expected. In that context, a statement from the government that they're investigating those crimes and will punish those responsible would be much more reassuring than a complete denial that anything bad ever happened.
Maybe you could ask some of your Uyghur friends if they know anyone who went to one of these centers and what they thought of the experience. I guess that'd be much more informative than debating with me.
The world had had more invasions, interventions, toppling of legitimate governments, etc, from the US than from China. And while the US keeps democracy internally (unlike China) they have supported all kinds of dictators abroad.
So there's that.
The mere fact that you were even considering "flattening China with nuclear weapons" to bring democracy (even to discard it) is telling of the US imperial mindset...
And the same is for the interventionist idea of "totally excluding China from any and all international trade".
Yeah, let's risk internal chaos, power struggles, civil war, famines, etc in a sovereign nation like China, because they don't have a system of government we approve of.
As if intervention to "bring democracy" worked so well in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and several other places besides, who cares for the million out of their homes, rising fundamentalism, killed, etc, they're not white enough...
When does some countries finally understand the concept of "mind you own effing business"?