And sometimes holding their clients to moral obligations is good for business. China can claim a policy of non-interference, but they want to look good too, and it'll be increasingly harder to please everyone if/when they dominate the spotlight.
Should China lend trillions of dollars to a country that is in two wars that resulted directly and indirectly millions of deaths?
I am sure African countries will recieve infrastructure from China...from the oil fields and mines straight to the ship channel. China is a country that doesn't have what the US has and wants what the US has. Same old song and dance.
And how do you measure the tangible benefits of holding your clients to moral obligations? Believe me it's not simply a smart-ass comment. I am aware of the possibility that you suggested, but neither you or anyone else would be able to prove the economic benefits would be much greater under that approach. The one constant of international politics is there are no permanent friends or enemies. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that. As an example, how about this, you give me $10,000 today and I'll be "eternally grateful" to you and promise some "compensation" in the future. What do you say? I'll even be your best net buddy. No? You will excuse China for doing the same. It doesn't pretend to be. Now if it did that would be a complete different matter. Still waiting for the great evidence that China is providing helicopter gunships to Sudan.
The standard is non-interference. It doesn't exclude the possibility there can be a bonus, secondary benefit that China takes. A little or subtle variation on a theme is still within the framework. Not incomprehensible at all. LOL, even though the outcome of a debate on international relations on an online basketball fan forum means squat in real life, genocide accusation could be just a gamesmanship by activist scoundrels? On the other hand I do find it pretty hilarious that collapse of Soviet Union easily brought tears to the your eyes. Since China is a founding member of the UN and a veto-wielding permanent member on the Security Council, I fail to see China is seeking to undermine the dignity and the authority of the UN. One could say UN Charter or regulations take precedence over China's own national interests. This is simply international norm. Nothing to fret about. Depends on whose opinions.
