What US did or did not do is not relevant. You argument about majority of people in all countries are overreaching. I can tell you citizens in many European countries take these issues very seriously.
I don't know what you specifically have in mind. My guess is Darfur. In my personal view there is no good guy in the Darfur mess. UN has not recognized Darfur conflict as genocide. In its 2005 report UN noted "genocidal intent appear to be missing."
Why is the US not relevant? Like China it is a country is it not? It shows precedent of what I'm trying to say - people not caring enough. I'm probably overreaching with the all countries thing, I have no idea what their attitudes are in Europe. If they feel so strongly about these moral issues then it is good if their govts represent their attitudes, but they shouldn't force their views upon the US, China etc.
Darfur and any other future events where clearly it would be wrong to deal with the gov'ts of those countries. I am arguing for a standard. I simply don't agree a Country should run like a company that only pursues.profits.
Well for one thing your standard can be controversial. You are probably aware China is constantly being called a "rogue nation" by sinophobes of all sorts.
I meant what US did or did not do does not set a bar for China. It may be a precedent, but not all precedents are good examples. Bad precedents actually teach us not to make the same mistakes again.
Good post and I think the PRC is taking a huge gamble on Africa. The PRC is in a good position where it has a lot of money to spread around with the hope that they get a good return for their investment but there are reasons why Africa has been an economic basketcase. I understand the PRC's decoupling investment from other issues but at the sametime that seems very risky. Whether the PRC takes sides or makes a moral judgement on a country fighting a civil war or violently suppressing much of its population doesn't mean that that might not be a good investment. Instability to where the country has to fight much of its own population should indicate that there are some big problems that are likely to affect its economy.
A standard not to deal and benefit rogue states that are killing their own people is controversial? As I said that is not a hard call at all. Other murky stuff, I agree with you, is much more difficult to be judged.
People die in (civil) war, duh. Did you miss the part where UN doesn't recognize your so-called genocide?
I think being selfish, opportunistic etc. is more of a human thing rather than a cultural thing, which is why I used the US as an example. For Chinese examples of citizen apathy towards dealing with what you consider "bad" countries, isn't it happening now? Unless the majority of Chinese citizens are unhappy about it, then it's their govt's job to represent their economic interests by trading with these nations.
You are missing my point. I am NOT trying to argue what the line is between civil war and genocide. I will give you that the line is often difficult to draw between the two. I simply argue if a event clear falls into the category of genocide that takes place in a country China is trading with, China should stop the trade. This is a easy position to defend for China's sake too, compared with the nonsense such as no interference with other country's internal affair.
My friend, Chinese can't vote and can't let themselves be heard. I am going to say something that will give wnes a heart attack, but I am going to say it anyways. Chinese gov't position w/o a clear standard in dealing with African countries are vulnerable b/c others can always say China's motive dealing with such countries is motivated by political reasons and their decisions are unchecked by democratic process. In reality, directly and indirectly, I think that might be true. Raising people's living standard is one thing, but China's gov't also face tremendous pressure to sustain the economic growth in order to save the political system, for many problems are hidden by the economic growth. China simply cannot let economic growth slip, and therefore disregard moral standards when trading with other countries.
Which means you have no idea of what the majority want either. This basically comes down to whether you think the Chinese people would care enough about the issue if they were a democracy. We will never know for sure, but if people in an affluent country like the US can't don't care enough, I very highly doubt the majority in China who have their own bunch of problems, care enough about the lives of people continents apart to consciously accept a lower quality of life. Have you read about the slave labor camps discovered in China in recent years? Chinese people are even enslaving other Chinese, today! Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I don't think there's much left to debate besides personal opinions anyway, so I'll leave it at that.
Three responses: If Obama decided to trade with Sudan, say when Darfur was still going on, you think nobody would care? The whole country would be infuriated. This country is pragmatic when comes to foreign policy, but to say no bottom-line moral standards exist whatsoever in this country is outrageous. If majority of Chinese approve their gov't's dealing with a rogue state in Africa , I would be infuriated towards them. But I am confident most Chinese have bottom-line moral standards that are minimum enough to recognize aiding genocide is wrong. You are twisting your position now. My argument with you was not about how majority of Chinese would respond. You were saying that it would be a OK for a country forgo moral obligations when trading with others as long as the country can derive benefits. I disagree.
1. I never said no one would care. I'm not saying no moral standards exist. I'm saying the govt and the people didn''t care enough about dealings with a "bad" country then. And I don't expect govt and the people to care enough dealings with other various "bad" countries now. 2. We just have to disagree on this. 3. Nope, not twisting my position, you are twisting mine. I would personally forgo some moral standards to derive benefits (this was in answer to your survey qn). I think a govt does not have moral obligations to the citizens of other countries. I think it is the govt's job to look after their own citizen's interests. Whether or not the citizens interests coincides with behaving in a way that is morally acceptable to you or not depends on them, and it is their govt's job to act in a way that reflects their citizen's wishes. eg. If the citizens are ok with trading with Sudan, then China should trade with Sudan. They have no moral obligation to the people of Sudan. I'll quote my first post for you:
http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/..._25/10_arrested_in_slave-labor_operation.html This is China where slave operations happen. I've got to say that Anhui is of the poorest regions, not the poorest region there is in China. So if it has widened to other provinces, that is just scary. But I think it is not everywhere. It's like you wake up and read an article that something is going on in Nebraska.
I disagree. I think a gov't has at least a moral obligation not to AID genocide of the citizens of another country even if trading with that country is beneficial to its own citizens.
if they did stop investing there, do you think what was happening would stop? i would think it would continue anyway.
