“Xinjiang Police Files”: No more repression


comment

Status: 05/24/2022 10:28 p.m

Traffic light politicians describe the photos from Chinese internment camps as “shocking”. But that is totally insufficient. The talk about a new China strategy must finally be followed by action.

A comment by Achim Wendler, BR

Those who are in shock are unable to act. That’s why it’s so worrying when traffic light politicians are now reporting that the pictures from China are “shocking”. It’s a mere impulse, emotionally – and politically completely inadequate.

The shock is unfounded: What we are seeing from China today has been known for a long time. The Chinese regime tortures, imprisons, humiliates. No, the problem facing the federal government – and our economy – is not that all of this became known today. Your problem is: It can no longer be suppressed.

Scholz proceeds as Merkel used to do

And that is exactly what the German government and business have been doing up to now: They are persistently and successfully suppressing the Chinese grievances. And they would like to continue like this: According to their coalition agreement, the traffic light wants to “address” China’s human rights violations. That can mean anything – and it should. “Thematize”, nudge a bit, hook it.

Olaf Scholz is proceeding as Angela Merkel used to: he wants to continue to deepen economic relations with China. And with it the dependence of Germany. It is an economic and therefore inevitably political dependency. A look at Russia every day shows how closely this is connected.

The displacement dividend has been skimmed off

Today proves definitively: The concept of “change through trade” was a misconception, it will fail in China like it failed in Russia. And the talk so far about a new, more realistic China strategy is just that: talk.

The traffic light must therefore quickly overcome its shock – and Germany really miss a new China strategy. The displacement dividend is now skimmed off.

Editorial note

Comments always reflect the opinion of the respective author and not that of the editors.

source site