FACTA - US legislation, impossed upon every financial institution on the planet.
IF you are going to blow up your ability to control practically every human being on the planets ability to have and use money within a golbal finacial system, it had better be worth it. I suspect this guy aint worth the trouble.
There are many European political dissidents here that had dozens of bank accounts canceled on them. Sometimes the only way to have a bank account after reaching a certain level of popularity is to bank in countries like Georgia, Bulgaria etc. where nobody has heard of you. Until they, too, cancel your account and you're unbanked again and unable to participate in a modern economy.
IMO the only way out of this kind of oppression is crypto, at least in the long term.
It's very common for Venezuelan, Iranian and Cuban citizens to be targeted in this way, however. Even those with dual nationality.
The fundamental problem is that bank accounts are not considered a human right. As we become increasingly cashless this becomes more and more of a problem.
It’s not the same but it’s on its way there - in New Zealand Nicky Hagar wrote Dirty Politics - shady deals and hatchet jobs being performed by a sleazy blog at the behest of politicians (primarily the current leader of New Zealand’s largest opposition party, Judith Collins).
Under political pressure to act, police asked Westpac bank for 10 months of Hager's bank records and received them, falsely claiming he was being investigated for fraud. They did not have a warrant.
The whole disgusting episode was made farcical by the later revelation that police had searched Hagars house but missed documents leaked by Snowden.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-pay-nicky-hager-substan...
Founder's family has also been blacklisted, because apparently they are guilty by association.
Yes, but to be fair that can just as easily be because as soon as you earn enough reputation as a dissident you are buried (metaphorically! Western Europe is very velvet glove when it comes to murder).
People shape their opinion around the perceived space of possibilities. Good luck sustaining outrage on the long term against an enemy who can incentivize friendly public discourse with tangible rewards.
Now this rogue nation state targets your landlords, your water company, your kids' school. How much can you route around or DIY before you're a prisoner?
The fix has to be other countries pushing back, ensuring freedom.
> Now this rogue nation state targets your landlords, your water company, your kids' school.
Without access to money you can't get any of these things. With cash, you can manage to find lodging, food and education for your kids.
I'm not saying it's worthless, it's far better than nothing, but you're still a prisoner if you're being denied mainstream staples like banking.
This isn't whataboutism, to be clear - I'm just pointing out that this is what big governments DO. It becomes less about ideals and more about expedience.
Remember, saying Hong Kong or Taiwan as a caster at a video game competition organized by a US company will get you fired.
Or are we forgetting these incidents now?
If China succeeds, soon it will claim every part of the Mongol empire (including almost all of Eastern Europe and some parts of Central Europe) is its internal affairs, because China considers the Mongol empire as merely one of its dynasties. Remember how China censored a French exhibition about Genghis Khan? [2]
Only a fool would believe their claim about “internal affairs”.
[0] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/21...
[1] https://www.js7tv.cn/news/201806_147250.html (in Chinese)
[2] https://www.france24.com/en/20201013-french-museum-halts-gen...
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/what-china-wan...
Obviously they project soft power further, but it is based on economic leverage in the same way that the USA has been doing since WW2. For example, that French museum exhibition was dependent on a Chinese museum to do their exhibition. That dependency came with strings. Only a fool would think that means the Red Army is about to invade Eastern Europe.
Are you trying to justify China’s claim about the South China Sea and surrounding areas as “internal affairs” with that blog post?
Whether or not the Red Army will invade Eastern Europe with the excuse of “internal affairs” has nothing to do with my point.
To be honest, if China succeeds in invading Taiwan because of “internal affairs”, they will likely go after Japan and Vietnam next (perhaps with other excuses), even though none of them fell to the Mongol empire.
I’m don’t want a lengthy discussion about what will happen next. I was just pointing out the arbitrariness of “internal affairs”. Sorry if you couldn’t get my point.
I can't think of a democratic, free country where the government started flipping tables because one TV station on the other end of the world showed the wrong version of a map. At worst the citizen of that country would make jokes and memes about it for a week.
The WHO didn't have to mention Taiwan...they pretended they didn't even hear a question mentioning Taiwan. That's self-censorship beyond reason.
You think Ukraine would enjoy a map showing Crimea as a part of Russia? Poland with Danzig/Gdansk as German? France with Alsace-Lorraine as German? India with Kashmir Pakistani? Argentina with the Falklands as British and vice versa? Etc. Many countries' citizens and governments would be rightfully agitated by maps hitting open or old wounds, and depending on the country and desperation of the government it could escalate to table flipping as well.
> The WHO didn't have to mention Taiwan...they pretended they didn't even hear a question mentioning Taiwan. That's self-censorship beyond reason
If they did respond to the question, they would be talking about information provided by Taiwan's government, implicitly recognising it as an independent authority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gui_Minhai#2020_trial_and_sent...
https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-...
They were completely complicit in human rights violating, american extraditions.
Still, it doesn't change anything about China kidnapping a Swedish citizen and torturing him into a confession because he dared to criticize China.
For the sake of discourse, could you list the countries that are allowed to extert extra-terratorial control.
Really?
1. Augustine Pinochet was arrested in London, UK on the principle of - and you'll love this one - universal juristiction.
2. the following countries have some form of universal juristiction: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, Senegal, Spain, United Kingdom, USA [1]
3. the USA passed the PEESA act [2] in their own congress/parliament where they grant themselves the right to unliterally decide - for the the entire of Europe - which natural gas suppliers are allowed to send gas to Europe.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction
[2] https://www.state.gov/protecting-europes-energy-security-act...
So what's one more?
The FSB also seems to get to (try to) assassinate certain crown subjects on British soil without consequence if they want to badly enough.
You lost me with that one. What does one have to do with the other?
The US literally locks down countries that they think misbehave.
> No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_cam...
One could possibly argue additional articles, particularly around fair tribunals also apply to the above situation above.
McCarthyism ended in around 1962.
During this era, homosexuality was still illegal, abortions were punished with prison time, and people with varying skin complexions still couldn’t drink from the same water fountains.
In terms of social progress, McCarthyism was only acceptable to a society totally alien to the one we live in today.
I wouldn't be surprised if the US start to make the life of China sympathizers difficult in near future if China becomes more competitive.
To me, the end of McCarthyism is the first point in the great wave of American social change that began in the 60s.
But moving on...
> I wouldn't be surprised if the US start to make the life of China sympathizers difficult in near future if China becomes more competitive.
I think that China is largely viewed as a 'foregin nation', whereas communism (whcih is what McCarthyism railed against) was an ideology.
You can adopt an ideology and still remain patriotic--China is a good example of how to take communism and fuse it with your countries national soul. However, you can't really 'adopt' a foregin power.
Because of that China will likely find itself with a lot less sympathizers than communism. The existing sympathizers will likely be people who are ethnically Chinese, which would make it difficult for the government to pressure them due to concerns over racism.
1962 wasn't even 60 years ago. The president of the USA was already an adult at that time.
On the one hand, people are alive who suffered under McCarthyism. On the other hand, much of the population will react strongly at being judged for the sins of their grandparents.
This happens today in every western country, there's nothing unusual about it.
oh wait, that was local government. So how about the anti-war movement in the late 1960s, closer, but not much closer.
Before I go further though I start to wonder about your requirements, I mean from where I'm sitting it is a 'commonly' understood thing that the anti-war movements in the U.S are often targeted for investigation and attack by government agents, but for every commonly understood thing there are people that do not agree for some reason that the thing that is the common understanding of the situation is correct.
So - before continuing - what is your position on the Chicago 7 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Seven)? Was there a conspiracy by the American government there or not? If there was then I have given an example even though not so far after McCarthyism was done, but more importantly if we can agree that there was then it is pretty easy to keep coming with examples over the years. If your opinion was there was not - but McCarthyism I take it was a bad thing in your book - what aspects of McCarthyism is needed to make an example you would find acceptable but would leave the Chicago 7 out?
on edit: of course my point with the Move bombing is that local government also counts in the U.S, although I suspect you would disagree otherwise there's lots of cops killing citizens and taking their property all over the country for you to choose from.
Didn't we already rule out the 1960's? That type of political violence really doesn't exist here anymore. Your perception of the country notwithstanding.
What is your position on Aaron Schwartz then?
Also, public forfeiture laws are not terrorism - they are policy.
Maybe we want interference from neither country?
> Extraordinary rendition, CIA, regime change, foreign invasions. Compare US to China, please
The PRC is explicitly opposed to a lot of basic values nearly all Westerners care a great deal about:
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-lea...
For the most part, US foreign policy broadly attempts to promote and spread those values, though there are some notable areas where it disregarded them or failed (though to properly see those, you sometimes have to look at the big picture).
I think is more accurate. I'm not sure it matters if China is opposed to my basic values but doesn't do anything about it, and the US isn't opposed to my basic values, but kidnaps and tortures me for a few years because I've grown a beard and went on a pilgrimage to Pakistan.
No, it's not "pretend." For instance the US just sunk something like 2 trillion dollars trying to build a democracy in Afghanistan, and you don't blow 2 trillion on anything you're only pretending to do (and if you think it's some conspiracy to line the pockets of defense contractors, there are far more efficient ways of doing that and it wouldn't have stopped).
> I'm not sure it matters if China is opposed to my basic values but doesn't do anything about it, and the US isn't opposed to my basic values, but kidnaps and tortures me for a few years because I've grown a beard and went on a pilgrimage to Pakistan.
You think China doesn't do that? I mean having "grown a beard and went on a pilgrimage to Pakistan" is a literally entry criteria to get sent to a camp in Xinjiang. Also:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-48634136
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/04/world/europe/repression-u...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/10/world/asia/china-canada-s...
To believe in good intentions, you need to also believe in complete idiocy. "Hey, let's just remove the authoritarian leaders and watch countries descend into civil war, that'll surely bring about democracy, right?" is a weird idea.
> You think China doesn't do that?
No, I'm not aware that China buys German Muslims from Pakistan's military in order to illegally torture & imprison them.
See, the whole spiel would be so much easier to believe if the acts would at least roughly align with the stated intentions. But they generally don't. I don't believe that the US government is made up of idiots, so "they meant well but were misguided" isn't on the table.
Yeah remember Meng?
A Chinese businesswoman showed some PPT to a HK based bank, then got arrested by RCMP for "bank fraud", at a time when Canada had no sanctions against Iran.
last time I chcked, HSBC is not a US bank. Which US ban are you referring to?
Actual Chinese extra-territorial controls in the form of sanctions and other legitimate instruments will come. More foreign banks start operating in the PRC now that the financial market is opening up to foreign institutions, more coupling and ability for PRC to assert legal extra-territorial mechanisms. Until then, this is just banks being prudent out of their own volition. Like Hollywood catering to the Chinese market.
If it’s any consolation, US will probably legislate a zone of exception preventing US banks from cooperating with CCP interests.
Given that currently it is a career-ending move in big enterprise or government to criticise the US right now, that's not unreasonable to think. Especially given that the US is (and has been) in decline.
In a few years I expect it will be very increasingly difficult to criticise China.