3 ms·

> The Chinese Communist Party is running an authoritarian, draconic police state Agree. But don't you think it is weird that this did not register during the t

> The Chinese Communist Party is running an authoritarian, draconic police state Agree. But don't you think it is weird that this did not register during the time when moving production to China was at it's height? How come the whole west were willing to look the other way at most if not all human rights violations in China for most part of the last 3 decades, only to now raise concern? I believe an honest assessment of those questions reveals without shadow of a doubt that humans rights violations in far off countries only become a concern for the west when it is useful for geopolitical or simple profit reasons. It has been that way since the opium wars and longer, and we fall for it every single time.

SaintGhurka 8y ago
There's a lot of history there. China had been liberalizing their society and there was some thinking - wishful thinking, perhaps - that accepting China into the international community via the WTO and offering them Most Favored Nation trading status would encourage continued liberalization. The thinking is obviously imperfect in hindsight, but I think that Bush and Obama both feared the complications and political fallout of trying to correct course.
xoa 8y ago
>But don't you think it is weird that this did not register during the time when moving production to China was at it's height? There have always been skeptics and strong opposition to China, and full disclosure I personally have long thought it was very foolish to sacrifice both our societal ideals and the Free Market on the alter of Free Trade (which as it's been used over the last few decades has been directly opposed to both). However at the same time I think it's unreasonable not to acknowledge that there were a lot of very smart people who were China doves out of a hypothesis that economic development would actually be the best way to peacefully and productively make China liberalize and become a strong, equal and valuable partner in the international order. It was believed that economic development would result in a growing middle class and in turn a demand for more political freedom, that enormous authoritarianism would ultimately be unsustainable, and that the moral thing to do was to not be too hard on these billion+ people most of whom were highly impoverished. And China also put on a good act, toeing various lines or making the right noises or even occasional actions, combined with carrots and sticks towards companies, while they built up. It has now become clear however that, at least in the short term, the idea that economic development would inevitably lead to political liberalization too has not worked out. Nor has a growing panopticon proved unsustainable so far. It may be that these were simply never linked concepts, or it might alternately be that technological and societal development has rendered the modern situation fundamentally different to how the West developed and shifted the power balance such that that window of history is firmly closed. At any rate however, while there were certainly a lot of people motivated purely by greed I think you are still overly uncharitable towards a lot of genuinely good people who had good intentions. Remember, this was coming directly off of the Cold War, a time of genuinely justified end-of-the-world terror and polarization and confrontational approaches. Even if it was naive, I can understand why some people, both exhausted by the CW and excited by an imagined future where liberal democratic societies spread throughout the world, thought building economic ties and giving China a lot of slack was an alternative approach that could work. But at this point consensus is no, regrettably it has not worked out. That a lot of anguished doves are now changing tack rather then stubbornly refusing to adapt is admirable, not bad, and will add some needed moderation and variety to new strategies rather then letting the pendulum go all the way in the other direction.
- Maken 8y ago
  > It was believed that economic development would result in a growing middle class and in turn a demand for more political freedom, that enormous authoritarianism would ultimately be unsustainable, and that the moral thing to do was to not be too hard on these billion+ people most of whom were highly impoverished. Maybe, just maybe, these people were a little too confident because the USSR had just collapsed.
- zozbot123 8y ago
  > It was believed that economic development would result in a growing middle class and in turn a demand for more political freedom, that ... authoritarianism would ultimately be unsustainable For the record, this is pretty much what happened historically e.g. in South Korea, and in Taiwan (which is culturally part of China). However, it did take a higher degree of development than we see in the mainland today, for there to be a real 'demand' for these sorts of changes.
hguant 8y ago
>How come the whole west were willing to look the other way at most if not all human rights violations in China for most part of the last 3 decades, only to now raise concern? This could be the subject of an interesting thesis paper in political psychology. I think a couple factors were at play. First, when China was opening up the first time, the expectation was that democracy would follow shortly - within a decade. I think there was a real belief across a broad swathe of the political class in 1970's America that capitalism was a force for good, that foundations of civic society free markets created would inevitably flourish into democracy. Additionally, I think you're wrong in saying that the whole west has been looking the other way when it comes to human rights violations in China. The Human Rights Watch has been going on about this for years, there were sanctions and massive protests against China after the Tiananmen Square massacre, and the Free Tibet movement has been going on since the...60's? There's been broad awareness of how much of a bad actor China is, and continuous >I believe an honest assessment of those questions reveals without shadow of a doubt that humans rights violations in far off countries only become a concern for the west when it is useful for geopolitical or simple profit reasons. I think this belies the scale of the threat to the West the Soviet Union represented. Ultimately you're correct; it's undeniable that the US in particular made policy choices with regards to China that put geopolitics first and human rights second, but the USSR represented a literal existential threat to democratic Europe. There's no moral and right choice here - opening relations with China keeps daylight between the CCP and the and the USSR, but legitimizes a regime that just murdered it's own middle class. At some level you need those confluences of moral, economic, and geopolitical motives to make changes. The moral imperative against the Chinese Communist Party has always been there, China has replaced the USSR as a threat and now that the economic incentives are being hit, we're seeing the geopolitical realm hinge more on the moral side. I don't think this is just or good - I think it's just how it is.

SaintGhurka 8y ago

There's a lot of history there. China had been liberalizing their society and there was some thinking - wishful thinking, perhaps - that accepting China into the international community via the WTO and offering them Most Favored Nation trading status would encourage continued liberalization. The thinking is obviously imperfect in hindsight, but I think that Bush and Obama both feared the complications and political fallout of trying to correct course.

xoa 8y ago

>But don't you think it is weird that this did not register during the time when moving production to China was at it's height? There have always been skeptics and strong opposition to China, and full disclosure I personally have long thought it was very foolish to sacrifice both our societal ideals and the Free Market on the alter of Free Trade (which as it's been used over the last few decades has been directly opposed to both). However at the same time I think it's unreasonable not to acknowledge that there were a lot of very smart people who were China doves out of a hypothesis that economic development would actually be the best way to peacefully and productively make China liberalize and become a strong, equal and valuable partner in the international order. It was believed that economic development would result in a growing middle class and in turn a demand for more political freedom, that enormous authoritarianism would ultimately be unsustainable, and that the moral thing to do was to not be too hard on these billion+ people most of whom were highly impoverished. And China also put on a good act, toeing various lines or making the right noises or even occasional actions, combined with carrots and sticks towards companies, while they built up. It has now become clear however that, at least in the short term, the idea that economic development would inevitably lead to political liberalization too has not worked out. Nor has a growing panopticon proved unsustainable so far. It may be that these were simply never linked concepts, or it might alternately be that technological and societal development has rendered the modern situation fundamentally different to how the West developed and shifted the power balance such that that window of history is firmly closed. At any rate however, while there were certainly a lot of people motivated purely by greed I think you are still overly uncharitable towards a lot of genuinely good people who had good intentions. Remember, this was coming directly off of the Cold War, a time of genuinely justified end-of-the-world terror and polarization and confrontational approaches. Even if it was naive, I can understand why some people, both exhausted by the CW and excited by an imagined future where liberal democratic societies spread throughout the world, thought building economic ties and giving China a lot of slack was an alternative approach that could work. But at this point consensus is no, regrettably it has not worked out. That a lot of anguished doves are now changing tack rather then stubbornly refusing to adapt is admirable, not bad, and will add some needed moderation and variety to new strategies rather then letting the pendulum go all the way in the other direction.

Maken 8y ago
> It was believed that economic development would result in a growing middle class and in turn a demand for more political freedom, that enormous authoritarianism would ultimately be unsustainable, and that the moral thing to do was to not be too hard on these billion+ people most of whom were highly impoverished. Maybe, just maybe, these people were a little too confident because the USSR had just collapsed.
zozbot123 8y ago
> It was believed that economic development would result in a growing middle class and in turn a demand for more political freedom, that ... authoritarianism would ultimately be unsustainable For the record, this is pretty much what happened historically e.g. in South Korea, and in Taiwan (which is culturally part of China). However, it did take a higher degree of development than we see in the mainland today, for there to be a real 'demand' for these sorts of changes.

hguant 8y ago

>How come the whole west were willing to look the other way at most if not all human rights violations in China for most part of the last 3 decades, only to now raise concern? This could be the subject of an interesting thesis paper in political psychology. I think a couple factors were at play. First, when China was opening up the first time, the expectation was that democracy would follow shortly - within a decade. I think there was a real belief across a broad swathe of the political class in 1970's America that capitalism was a force for good, that foundations of civic society free markets created would inevitably flourish into democracy. Additionally, I think you're wrong in saying that the whole west has been looking the other way when it comes to human rights violations in China. The Human Rights Watch has been going on about this for years, there were sanctions and massive protests against China after the Tiananmen Square massacre, and the Free Tibet movement has been going on since the...60's? There's been broad awareness of how much of a bad actor China is, and continuous >I believe an honest assessment of those questions reveals without shadow of a doubt that humans rights violations in far off countries only become a concern for the west when it is useful for geopolitical or simple profit reasons. I think this belies the scale of the threat to the West the Soviet Union represented. Ultimately you're correct; it's undeniable that the US in particular made policy choices with regards to China that put geopolitics first and human rights second, but the USSR represented a literal existential threat to democratic Europe. There's no moral and right choice here - opening relations with China keeps daylight between the CCP and the and the USSR, but legitimizes a regime that just murdered it's own middle class. At some level you need those confluences of moral, economic, and geopolitical motives to make changes. The moral imperative against the Chinese Communist Party has always been there, China has replaced the USSR as a threat and now that the economic incentives are being hit, we're seeing the geopolitical realm hinge more on the moral side. I don't think this is just or good - I think it's just how it is.