> Protectionism is a valid strategy to help boost domestic economic development and it's fairly arrogant and imperialistic to assert that we as fully developed

> Protectionism is a valid strategy to help boost domestic economic development and it's fairly arrogant and imperialistic to assert that we as fully developed foreigners have any right to exploit markets in less developed areas. Any time there is a tariff, it's essentially being practiced. Its been shown to be largely counterproductive domestically as it provokes trade wars that destroy domestic industries that rely on the import/export market. You cherry pick examples of a handful of things that had nothing to do with free trade (free trade has nothing to do with banning goods domestically, such as a specific drug or restricting speech). > They erected a firewall because of centuries of Western imperialism and foreign bullying. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/12/china-south-africa-imperialism-zambia-brics-globalization/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/12/china-south-africa-imperi... > In addition, the interaction of neoliberal capitalism and often oppressive labor practices has complicated attempts to secure elite assent. In 2006, a Zambian minister wept when she saw the environment in which workers toiled at the Chinese-owned Collum Coal Mine. Four years later, eleven employees were shot at the site while protesting working conditions. (After widespread outrage, the state eventually took control of the mine.) > Scarce jobs, incidents like the Collum shootings, and poor working conditions at Chinese-owned companies sparked “anti-Chinese” riots in Zambia and some other countries on the continent. Despite some resistance, however, China — as well as other countries and companies — hasn’t been cut off from market and investment access. How has it been able to do so? > However, the current configuration is not auspicious for economic diversification or for tackling inequality and poverty in countries like Zambia. In a 2011 speech at the third BRICS leaders meeting, South African President Jacob Zuma said, “We are now equal co-architects of a new equitable international system.” But the reality couldn’t be more different. South Africa’s current “sub-imperial” role (both dominated by external powers and transnational capital and dominating the Southern African region itself) is the one it has historically played. The main difference now is that China is the emergent potential hegemon, rather than Britain. https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/02/10/dispatches-bangladesh-should-stand-chinas-bullying https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/02/10/dispatches-bangladesh-sh... > As a result, it shouldn’t be surprising to hear that Ma Mingqiang, China’s ambassador to Bangladesh, objected vehemently last week after visiting the Dhaka Art Summit that featured facsimile images of handwritten notes written by some Tibetan self-immolators, among other subjects.. But what is surprising – and alarming – is that the organizers of the Dhaka Art Summit didn’t respond to the ambassador’s diatribe by defending the works. Worried that China might even prevail and force the Bangladeshi government to shut down the summit altogether, the exhibit’s artists, Tenzing Sonam and Ritu Sarin, chose another unique form of protest: covering the images. In a statement, the artists said their actions were intended to “draw attention to the unreasonable demands of the Chinese Embassy on an event taking place in another country and at the same time further highlight the nature of censorship and oppression inside Tibet.” Where is your moral outrage on behalf of nations bullied by China?