Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where is the frank admission? Canada arrested a Huawei executive at the behest of USA, then China started arresting Canadians in China. Wouldn't China be the one retaliating?
A travel warning citing “the potential for American citizens visiting and residing in China to be arbitrarily interrogated and detained.” which has not happened, nor been threatened , and is a law that has always been in place.
They are considering that warning because recently citizens of Canada have been detained in a tit-for-tat with China due to Canada detaining a Chinese citizen, and since it also involved USA they are probably assuming it might happen to citizens of USA as well. Seems silly and unnecessary warning to me but I understand the logic of it.
You can always be arbitrarily detained in any country for the reasons given. To say so or not say so depends on whether the state department has them on the punishment list for political reasons.
You said it's never happened. When an example is given you're suddenly saying it can happen. You also still have it backwards, China is the one threatening retaliation and following through by detaining people.
US is punishing China by setting their risk level the same as they have for Germany, France, and UK? That'll show 'em! Meanwhile they are "punishing" Central African Republic, Haiti, Burundi, Mauritania, etc. with a high risk level for political reasons? You aren't making much sense.
The example you gave was nearly four years ago, so is hardly relevant to suddenly changing the warnings this week. If there has not been an incident in four years, realistic risk assessment would warrant relaxing the warning, instead of just the opposite.
I never suggested that political posture was the only reason for warnings, nor even the principal reason.
If the State Department has a travel advisory out for it, chances are quite high that country was never on my list of places I wanted to go to in the first place.
The example you gave was nearly four years ago, so is hardly relevant to suddenly changing the warnings this week. If there has not been an incident in four years, realistic risk assessment would warrant relaxing the warning, instead of just the opposite.
You said it's never happened, now you're saying the word "never" doesn't include four years ago. The Yankees have never won a world series.
Your ever evolving definition of the word "never" aside, threat assessments are based on risk of something happening, not whether something has actually happened within some arbitrary time frame. You're ignoring the very recent detention of Canadian citizens in China, something that was clearly a retaliatory move for Canada arresting a Chinese citizen. Given that arrest was at the request of the United States it's quite logical this advisory was related to this (very recent) incident, unless you want to further narrow your custom definition of "never" to 72 hours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cebuan
I never suggested that political posture was the only reason for warnings, nor even the principal reason.
You suggested it for this advisory on China, and seem determined to convince yourself it has nothing to do with China arbitrarily detaining foreigners over the past couple weeks.
You said it's never happened, now you're saying the word "never" doesn't include four years ago. The Yankees have never won a world series.
Your ever evolving definition of the word "never" aside, threat assessments are based on risk of something happening, not whether something has actually happened within some arbitrary time frame. You're ignoring the very recent detention of Canadian citizens in China, something that was clearly a retaliatory move for Canada arresting a Chinese citizen. Given that arrest was at the request of the United States it's quite logical this advisory was related to this (very recent) incident, unless you want to further narrow your custom definition of "never" to 72 hours.
You suggested it for this advisory on China, and seem determined to convince yourself it has nothing to do with China arbitrarily detaining foreigners over the past couple weeks.
The Canadians China arrested have criticized the Chinese government. While there is no legal ground, they don't detain foreigners indiscriminately.
I agree that his use of "never" is too liberal. The risk is a non-zero, but it's infinitesimal for ordinary tourists.
The Canadians China arrested have criticized the Chinese government. While there is no legal ground, they don't detain foreigners indiscriminately.
To a westerner that can freely criticize governments, that is arbitrary detainment. It was a retaliatory move by China against Canada, and if Canada hadn't detained that Huawei executive they wouldn't have been arbitrarily detained.
Agreed changes are almost nil and is silly travel warning.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
