>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

>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.