Saitu, I wonder why ever there is such a thing called UN trade embargo that can be imposed on a nation. UN must not be productive when deciding a resolution whether to impose a trade embargo on a nation. If there were benefits to trade with Nazi Germany, it would be unproductive to focus what the trade would have to Jews. Also mind you, Japan and many European countries must be slackers b/c they sure take their moral obligations seriously. Why are you making it out as if I was against China trading with any African country?
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Wrote it in a rush. China for long time and still tells foreign countries not to interfere with China's internal affairs while trading/investing China. This is the same policy China carries out on it own when trade/invest other countries.
Actually I've seen WNES criticize the Chinese govt before in other threads. I think he is pro-China, in that he wants to see China do well, but I wouldn't call him a party hack. He does think China does things wrong, he just doesn't think international policy is one of those things.
So someone argues that a nation has certain moral obligations when trading with another country is not unproductive. You agree? And if you didn't think I was against China trading with African countries, you and I indeed have not much left to argue about.
At this stage yes, because it's not even really an argument, or at least I have not seen one. It's just a statement of opinion. OK, I might have misunderstood your qn, so to clarify: I don't think you're against China trading with every African country. I think you are against China trading with countries which would benefit a govt with genocidal policies.
China may not be saints, but they are seizing a massive opportunity that the West has missed, one that the US and Europe will come to regret in the decades to come. Keep on sending aid dollars, gentlemen. We'll keep letting the Chinese build our roads and factories.
I'm not sure that supports your point. The PRC doesn't want interference in their own internal affairs but trade and they don't want to interfere in other countries but wants to trade with them. I don't see how that leads to saying that the PRC should consider morals in their dealings. If anything that supports Wnes and others posters point.
Just to sum up. I agree with you in principle that countries shouldn't be rewarding countries doing terrible things to their own people. I also agree that the PRC should listen to world opinion. As many of the other posters noted I have criticized the PRC on a variety of issues and have pointed to world opion. The problem though is that the PRC seems to turn a deaf ear to World opinion. I don't think its good but that is simply where things stand. The second problem that I have with your argument is that I'm not sure that having the PRC not trade and invest in Africa will improve things and its possible that could make things worse. I am a believer in trade and development as a net positive and while those things might not lead to immediate political change it could gradually. If PRC investment leads to improving the standard of living for most Africans on the whole that is a good thing and likely as standard of living improves those people will push for other political changes.
Like I said, this shows China does not want to hold itself to a higher standard. The implication of China's advancing a moral bottom-line trade policy with its trade partners is that it will have to concede other foreign countries may carry out the same policy to China, which China abhors. But really there is nothing to be feared of under such de minis standard in China, or is there? I think as a Nation, just like a person, it needs to grow. People in China are willing to let the gov't take time to grow itself and hope the current political process will correct many problems. I think this is an example showing China is unwilling to let its decisions checked either by people's voice or a self-conscious moral standard. Is this a good thing or bad thing, economic wise? I will argue it is a bad thing, but that's not the main point I was trying to get at.
Because you don't have a point. What Saitou says has no bearing on my position. I believe China makes judgment on each case in international affairs. Even thought each matter is considered on the merit of the its own, China does not have double standards. To cut to the chase, you are the one who repeatedly brought the genocide charge in the first place, why backpedaling now? If the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur authorized by UN didn't find any evidence of genocide, why should China bother with something that doesn't exist? China fueling genocide in Darfur is the central theme of you activist scoundrels' agenda. Don't tell me you are not sure what you were crying about. I also notice you didn't respond to my question with regard to "irresponsible" governments. Maybe your standard of "irresponsible" government is as murky as your understanding of "genocide"? I already said there is no good guy in the Darfur conflict. The rebel groups are backed by Sudan's neighboring countries which are allegedly backed by the West. I am not taking sides, but I'd like to remind you the victims took their turns to be perpetrators. There is no such "Let's say" scenario happening.
My approach only says if a country is doing, for the sake of the argument, more than 90% bad with China's trade money, then China should stop. China is not bound by constant moral qualm to decide whether a nation is indeed advancing under my approach. Don't do business with bad guys. That's a good standard to hold itself to and a good value to show to the citizens of China, don't you think? So if a similar situation like Darfur ever comes up again, China should make it clear that our principle is not to deal with bad guys, we have had good faith investigation showing us this is not the case, present evidences, we think our trade with this country is actually benefiting their progress, present evidences, and therefore we will continue trade with this country. This is much better than the non-interference response.
What drivel. The number one quote the science of economics is "people are greedy." And that is the bottom line. During the past China aided African nations plenty of times (think the 50's through the 70's) when the country itself was a sh1thole. And at the time it was "ideological purity" and equally worthless crap too instead of economic benefit. It got China what... exactly? Same situation with Vietnam. It only takes a minor change to turn it from one of China's "allies" to a component of America's China encircling strategy. Fact of the matter is, money talks, bullsh1t walks. Has been the case, is the case and will always be the case. What you are arguing is China should be "great" now for some highly abstract theoretical non-existantial benefit in the future when history never fails to prove you wrong. The bottom line is the Chinese government has obligations, moral or otherwise, TO AND ONLY TO Chinese citizens. Just as Sudan has obligation only to its citizens so hence would have no qualms kicking China to the curb should a better suitor come along. It's nothing personal. It's just good business. Whether Sudan is good at taking care of its obligation to its people is non of China's (or anybody else's) goddam business.
I disagree. For various reasons, China is considering itself a developing country and will continue to do so for foreseeable future despite all the talks about its rising economic prowess and next superpower status. One thing you need to keep in mind is that the "World" is not merely comprised of the West (plus Japan, and whatever perceived China's rivalries in Asia). The recent Africa-China summit is a testament to China's popularity among developing countries. China losing support from the Third World amounts to a politician losing his base, so to speak. That would be inconceivable as long as CCP is in power. Likewise I also disagree with Saitou etc in that genocide is a serious charge that China cannot afford to ignore. China's foreign policy approach, while principled, is not dogmatic, but rather pragmatic and perhaps nuanced. What are happening in Africa actually work hugely in China's favor because 1), the consensus among African nations is that the conflicts in Africa should be resolved within, not by intervention or interference from outside and 2), by and large Africans themselves have a hard time accepting the genocide claim by the West. These are on top of the bad taste the West has left in Africans' mouth due to the slave trade, exploitation, and colonialism in the past.
^^^ Whatever the nuance you are claiming I don't see it in your approach. A pragmatic and nuanced approach would be a standard that has a clear stopping point. You are just too biased to agree with me. I have pointed out earlier you take the genocide accusation seriously. You definitely would stop trading if UN finds genocide and imposes a trade embargo. That's indeed different from no bottom-line non-interference policy you have been yapping about for awhile now. And for once don't you agree there is something egregiously bad against human nature that you don't need anybody's opinion to know?