Is The Chinese Model (Of Dealing With 3rd World Developemnt) The Best?

[Mijin]

@MrDibble

Let’s stop there - I wasn’t restricting it like that. Are you?

It’s pretty obvious that human rights as usually defined are not mostly about life or death threats.

Looking down the UN declaration of human rights, I see only 2 out of 27 articles that unambiguously mention threats to life (article 3, the right to life, and article 25, the right to a decent standard of living / healthcare).
I’ll allow a third, even though it’s not inherently life or death; article 4: no-one shall be held in slavery.
(Simply because historically slaves were sometimes murdered or kept in conditions that greatly reduced their lives.)

But still, that’s 1/9 articles.

Freedom from forced removal from your land is not, IMO, a “high level” right, either. It’s a form of genocide.

There’s a sleight of hand here.
You’re saying that forced removal is a life or death issue because some people consider it a form of genocide, and genocide has connotations of being about murder.

Having said that, of course making people homeless can threaten their survival.
I’ve already conceded that some human rights transgressions threaten survival. That wasn’t the point.

The point was that if there were a choice between typical human rights violations and remaining dirt poor, it may be the case that there is less suffering on the human rights violation side.

It’s *not *a tangent. The whole thread is about whether the Chinese Model is best, and the Chinese Model *explicitly *includes not worrying about human rights concerns (“politics”) in potential trading partners e.g. Sudanese Govt. So if you say “a case can be made,” you’re saying it about the Chinese too.

There’s another sleight of hand here.

To my knowledge, the Chinese are not imposing human rights violations on anybody. So it’s not the same thing as choosing human rights or investment.
Nor is it the case that the chinese model is inherently about human rights abuse – it’s simply that the chinese don’t care about such things.

Which is not a million miles different from the west. If we really need to trade with a country, we don’t let our morals get in the way (e.g. saudi arabia).

The question is, what is best for africa; boycotting all countries with dodgy human rights or trading with them? In my opinion, in most cases, it’s the latter.
Not to imply we shouldn’t keep trying to improve the situation; but complete shut-outs don’t seem to help matters much.

[MrDibble]

@Mijin

It’s pretty obvious that human rights as usually defined are not mostly about life or death threats.

I didn’t restrict it to “life or death threats” either.

There’s a sleight of hand here.
You’re saying that forced removal is a life or death issue because some people consider it a form of genocide, and genocide has connotations of being about murder.

No. I said it’s a “higher level” threat. I said nothing about “life or death”, that’s your strawman. Genocide is about the destruction of a people as a coherent entity. That this can be accomplished without actually killing anyone is a side issue.

To my knowledge, the Chinese are not imposing human rights violations on anybody.

No, just funding them. Or do you think the bullets in Darfur grow on trees?

So it’s not the same thing as choosing human rights or investment.

It is for the Chinese.

Nor is it the case that the chinese model is inherently about human rights abuse – it’s simply that the chinese don’t care about such things.

“don’t care” is one way of putting it. Profiteering from them is another.

Which is not a million miles different from the west. If we really need to trade with a country, we don’t let our morals get in the way (e.g. saudi arabia).

…and when have I ever had anything good to say about the West’s support of murder and oppression in the Third World? So what that attempted “Everyone does it!” argument was for, I don’t know.

The question is, what is best for africa; boycotting all countries with dodgy human rights or trading with them? In my opinion, in most cases, it’s the latter.

And in mine, it’s the former. Especially if you don’t at least try and ensure that the trade spreads downwards.

Let me restate: If your trade is enriching the current oppressors, you are doing more harm than good, and are complicit in the oppression.

Not to imply we shouldn’t keep trying to improve the situation; but complete shut-outs don’t seem to help matters much.

Helped in South Africa. Would help in Zimbabwe if it were enforced. Ditto many other countries. Doesn’t profit being a tinpot dictator if you can’t travel anywhere and have no foreign teat to suck off of.

[Mijin]

@MrDibble

I said nothing about “life or death”, that’s your strawman. Genocide is about the destruction of a people as a coherent entity. That this can be accomplished without actually killing anyone is a side issue.

We’ve gone round in an absurd circle over this.

I said that a particular claim was supportable using the logic that extreme poverty leads to life or death threats whereas human rights abuses are usually not quite that severe.

If you’re now saying the example you gave isn’t a life or death threat, then you’re conceding the point.

Which is fair enough, that should happen in a discussion. But you seem confused about something now.

No, just funding them. Or do you think the bullets in Darfur grow on trees?

The thread began with descriptions of the chinese building roads and power stations. This kind of investment is great for Africa IMO, because for one thing it’s not so easy to convert to bullets.

Handing over just cold hard cash to the bad guys though…yes that’s different. The chinese should pause in the case of countries like Sudan.

And for various economic reasons, discovering oil can be almost the worst thing that can happen to a very poor country. So all countries should hesitate to trade cash for oil with such countries.

…and when have I ever had anything good to say about the West’s support of murder and oppression in the Third World? So what that attempted “Everyone does it!” argument was for, I don’t know.

That wasn’t my point.
I was simply wondering why we were referring to trading with such countries as part of “the chinese model”. It’s the everyone model; the difference is just the chinese are trading with African bad guys, which most of the west hypocritically finds unpalatable.

Helped in South Africa. Would help in Zimbabwe if it were enforced. Ditto many other countries. Doesn’t profit being a tinpot dictator if you can’t travel anywhere and have no foreign teat to suck off of.

I was just talking about economic sanctions. I think we should apply political pressure no matter what.

But economic sanctions? Zimbabwe’s GDP dropped by about 40% in 7 years under Mugabe, and the fucker’s still “head of state”. So I have no illusions about economic pressure making changes to societies.

[MrDibble]

@Mijin

Handing over just cold hard cash to the bad guys though…yes that’s different. The chinese should pause in the case of countries like Sudan.

Then…we don’t really differ that much. That was hard to get to, but you’re right, that’s how debate goes.

I was just talking about economic sanctions. I think we should apply political pressure no matter what.

I was talking about sanctions too. That’s what ultimately stopped Apartheid.

But economic sanctions? Zimbabwe’s GDP dropped by about 40% in 7 years under Mugabe, and the fucker’s still “head of state”. So I have no illusions about economic pressure making changes to societies.

It’s not the overall societal effects that matter, it’s the direct effects on the people in power - no longer able to holiday in the Caribbean and shop in Paris, no longer able to afford that 5th Rolls…that’s the level of ostracism the Apartheid leaders got, it’s (generally) the kind that outright terrorists get - but Mugabe can still go shopping in Hong Kong and some European countries. But it really, really pisses him off that he can’t go to London. Now imagine he couldn’t go anywhere? Not really worth the constant fighting and living in fear of assassination etc, if you can’t even placate the trophy wife with some Jimmy Chus, is it?