It's not about losing face in the public. It's about getting resources to keep economy flow. I will argue actually for China's benefit, stop dealing with a rouge state will help China's energy plan in many ways.
China deals with any country on state-to-state basis. How that country conducts its internal affairs is strictly its own business. Genocide is a loaded term and can be subjective.
I think both are important. As I have seen with my own eyes. Keeping the economy afloat and saving face.
YallMean: I get what you are saying, but I don't think China should have any obligations to the citizens of other nations. Their only obligation is to provide a good quality of life/safety for their own citizens (I'm not saying their perfect at this either, their not). If their trade interests happen to fund immoral regimes that's just too bad. China isn't alone in doing this, the US supported Saddam in the past etc. I do see potential for conflicts in future though. If these countries which China has invested in destabilize affecting China's interests, will Africa be to China what the middle east is to the US? Will China intervene?
Look at China's history. They would chicken out in this scenario. I don't think they are feeling like safeguard for those countries. China is doing it for its own economic advantage. That is the difference. But yeah there is the possibility that they have no choice than that of intervention.
That's what I would argue if I were a pure opportunist. I am interested to know how would a Chinese respond in a survey asking: should China fund a country that is killing its own people including babies for tribe cleansing purpose. And you will tell me too bad, screw the baby?
That's why I argue there is a moral obligation. A moral obligation to the suffering people and a moral obligation to the Chinese people too.
If I was a Chinese citizen, and was asked "should China trade with a country that is killing its own people including babies for tribe cleansing purposes so that you can enjoy a better quality of life?" I'd probably say yes. I say probably because babies dying for my comfort makes me feel bad, and I don't want to say I would agree to it just for the sake of making an argument. But... probably yes.
If you phrased the question in the way you did they will probably say no. But I think most people in any country, if they were aware that their country was dealing with "bad" countries to the benefit of their own quality of life would be too apathetic to do anything about it. For example, if there were elections, people won't vote based on what "bad" country candidate A would be willing to trade with, they will vote on whether candidate A can provide a tax cut/healthcare or whatever direct benefits they can get even if it is partly funded by trade with "bad" country. This is just a guess, and it's possible that I'm assuming other people are like me.
On a side note, I'm curious what Ron Paul or a libertarian's position would be on this. Would they trade with baby murdering countries?
It is true that at the end of day People may vote by checking their pockets, but you can't deny a candidate's morality is important too. Cough ... Bush II .. Cough. I am not sure there would be ever a situation that presents two drastic choices only: deal or die, to the citizens of a country that benefits from the trade.
If you are the one framing such survey question, you probably want to appoint yourself as propaganda minister. The question, properly worded in neutrality, would replace the phrase "fund a country that is killing blah blah ..." with "do business with a country that is in the midst of a civil war." Raising the living standards of its own people is the paramount obligation of PRC government to its people. Whether investing in countries of internal conflicts is a sound strategy is debatable. One can't discount the possibilities where risks outweigh benefits, but in the grand scheme of things, such risks appear to be minimal. You'd be a fool to think PRC is throwing money in fire.
I think we actually agree with each other. My view is that in situations where something egregious like genocide clearly is happening with China's money, China should stop giving that money. I don't think you would disagree. Right? You seem to be saying most of times it is hard to judge what exactly is going on in those African countries based on moral standards and therefore China should not be required to abstained from trading with those countries. That I agree.
Yeah my point is, I think the majority of people in all countries will choose to turn a blind eye if they knew their country dealt with a "bad" country, especially if it is of some benefit to their country. In the 80s I don't think the US govt's ties with Saddam were a major issue right? Sure, if confronted with the facts, a citizen would denounce such actions, and some will even change their vote over this issue. But I think the majority would rather close one eye and get on with their lives. And if the citizens value the economic benefits over the moral issues with their ACTIONS, then their government should place more importance on the economic benefits over the moral issues too.
