It is their property, should they not decide who to do business with?
Hell no. They forced China to allow them to open up that shit on Chinese territory. China was the victim of imperialism; that "business" is on Chinese territory against Chinese will. Even today when no such thing can happen, China has the right to close down any business for violation of laws such as discrimination.
Now if a person bought a home in China, then s/he can let whomever they want in their home.
It's China's "right" to withdraw business, just like South Korea's "right" to place THAAD on their soil.
OK very good
However, China went further to demand that SK not deploy additional THAAD, not enter US-led anti-ballistic missile defense, and not enter into Trilateral alliance with US-Japan, which is overriding SK's sovereign decision making.
No, demands are not bullying. First of all, there's not really a difference between a demand and a request. These requests never ever override someone else's sovereign decision making because that would mean that their ability to self-determine was taken away and "overrode" by your decision for them. That never happened. China told South Korea that if they wanted to keep Chinese business, they would decide one way vs the other way. The decision was theirs. Nothing was overriden.
Bullying has nothing to with China's "rights", but how it affects South Korea's "rights" - bullying it has to do with violent or non-violent intimidation or threats to override SK's rights.
South Korea's rights are unchanged. They maintain their rights to deploy anything they want on their territory. Their rights are unaffected. But they can do so without Chinese business.
The "
" as preconditions for resuming diplomatic ties is economic coercion for a geostrategic objective (i.e., break the US containment of China).
Yeah, they have the right to employ American weapons and China has the right to break diplomatic relations. All good and within their respective rights.
So I find it rather convenient you are inconsistent with your definitions, have no principled moral stance, and just cherry-pick whatever is most convenient for your narrative.
I find it hard to believe you can't figure out the difference between telling someone you won't buy thier things or accept their diplomats vs threatening to invade them. Are you really struggling to understand the difference or are you just arguing to argue?
That's literally just making things up - the definition of bullying has nothing to do with violation of China's rights, but of SOUTH KOREA's rights.
That's literally reading comprehension failure.
"If you didn't violate anyone's rights, you didn't bully anyone." That means if China didn't violate South Korea's rights, China didn't bully South Korea. Of course it's about South Korea's rights. How did you miss that?
I'm quite curious to know, if you think that boycotting someone's business due to a disagreement is bullying then what do you think is the appropriate, non-bullying action to take if a business offends you?
