Detainees take their lives in China
July 3, 2001 9:55 AM Subscribe
Detainees take their lives in China Ouyr trading partners---no, not those arrested and being held. Wonder how many body parts can be harvested for the transplant market.
[W]ithout the mass influx of cash coming to those in power in China, its woult be very, very likely to result in a war. So your suggestion is to ignore the problem and hope it goes away...? Lesser of two evils...? An unjust peace is better than a just war? I have to disagree with your implications here. It seems you mostly object to a "war" as a name. Now people are just dying and being tortured, but that's OK because we call it by some other name.
posted by rschram at 10:20 AM on July 3, 2001
posted by rschram at 10:20 AM on July 3, 2001
There is a culture of China's leaders just doing as they please that is enabled by their relative xenophobia and the isolation it allows.
I can't think of faster way to affect Chinese behavior than to trade with them, and encourage the usual cultural influence that an open market provides.
posted by dong_resin at 12:17 PM on July 3, 2001
I can't think of faster way to affect Chinese behavior than to trade with them, and encourage the usual cultural influence that an open market provides.
posted by dong_resin at 12:17 PM on July 3, 2001
I have to disagree with your implications here. It seems you mostly object to a "war" as a name. Now people are just dying and being tortured, but that's OK because we call it by some other name.
No, those weren't my implications at all.
"War" means war between the two largest remaining nuclear powers in this case. We're talking potential apocolypse here... China may be waging a war of sorts on a large number of its own citizens, but this is FAR MORE than a semantic difference from the War we would be talking about should we cut off trade and piss off china enough.
Now people are just dying and being tortured, but that's OK because we call it by some other name.
Nice, did I say it was "OK"? I said it was disgusting, but I said that we need to actually consider how many more people might suffer/die were we to get into a real war with China.
Again, you're implication that China persecution of its own citizens is the same as a world war is downright silly.
You enjoy your self-righteous fantasy world, though.
posted by malphigian at 11:19 PM on July 3, 2001
No, those weren't my implications at all.
"War" means war between the two largest remaining nuclear powers in this case. We're talking potential apocolypse here... China may be waging a war of sorts on a large number of its own citizens, but this is FAR MORE than a semantic difference from the War we would be talking about should we cut off trade and piss off china enough.
Now people are just dying and being tortured, but that's OK because we call it by some other name.
Nice, did I say it was "OK"? I said it was disgusting, but I said that we need to actually consider how many more people might suffer/die were we to get into a real war with China.
Again, you're implication that China persecution of its own citizens is the same as a world war is downright silly.
You enjoy your self-righteous fantasy world, though.
posted by malphigian at 11:19 PM on July 3, 2001
Malphigian, you must admit that you left yourself open to such a reading, since you didn't specify your meaning. I'm happy that you didn't really intend what I thought. Pragmatically assessing costs versus benefits of course can play a role, but somehow you use the same analysis to justify giving "the fat cats" in China money. It would be one thing to say that free trade will indirectly strengthen democratization, however, if all the money is going to "fat cats" (who also happen to have the threat of nuclear war) then you kind of shoot your own argument in the foot. If the money is just going to fat cats, then how else can one apply pressure?
posted by rschram at 1:21 PM on July 4, 2001
posted by rschram at 1:21 PM on July 4, 2001
« Older Mordecai Richler dead at 70. | 11-year-old files $1M suit against McDonald's for... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
If there is open trade with China, the fat cats in China (and the various multi-nationals involved) make lots of money. Still sounds bad, I know... but...
Imagine the taiwan situation. Now imagine the US says tmrw "We are ceasing all trade with China until they fix their human rights issues". Imagine another standoff like the one over the spy plane, or the embassy bombing, or whatever... without the mass influx of cash coming to those in power in China, its woult be very, very likely to result in a war.
It's not worth it. Sorry, I know its awfully realpolitik of me, but risking a war with china (doubtless a global disaster) in the interest of having the US speak for the rights of Chinese citizens isn't worth it.
posted by malphigian at 10:07 AM on July 3, 2001