There’s no reason to get into “the Chinese care about face” crap, like they’re the only country that care about looking weak. The policy is unashamedly pointed at actually weakening the government’s control of their society.
I have three reactions.
First, you describe a state of freedom of information among certain countries when, even that set of countries has many (and inconsistent) restrictions on information. As just one small example, in the EU you have the so-called “right to be forgotten.” But there are dozens of such exceptions, ranging from expungement of criminal conviction information to confidential trade secrets to information about closed court proceedings. I doubt there is consensus to be had on the rules even among the initial member states. Even if you made the rule something like “if one state among the initial signors permits this form of censorship then it is allowed,” then you’ll just have endless conflict over whether an exceptions is being applied as intended. I doubt it results in a more comprehensive or effective system than the kind of case-by-case sanctions and trade negotiations that currently operate.
Second, I would be more skeptical about the value of the freedom of information. I say that as someone who fights for the freedom of information professionally. I think it is extremely important, especially in the United States. But I don’t actually think countries like China or Saudi Arabia change substantially because you do away with some of their censorship. There is way more freedom of information in China now than there was in 1996, but it is, if anything, more authoritarian.
Third, if we’re going to nuke the global trade situation in favor of some huge push for a policy goal, that goal really ought to be climate change. Of course, cutting off trade with Saudi Arabia might be very good for environmental policy all on its own! But I we probably need to be pulling all of our levers on that singular goal. Indeed, Chinese state control over their economy may ultimately be good for battling climate change, unfortunately.
Assuming this lead to a more free society overall, then I think it would lead to more prosperity, less strife, more cooperation, etc. – all the benefits we have from a Europe that no longer is constantly making war on each other.
If there was actually a united front of the more free and wealthy countries, then I would presume countries like India and many African countries would be likely to rush in to fill the gap. And so the Indian subcontinent and Africa would get a huge boost in trade and industry, while the economies of China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia would suffer. Struggling economies might lead to a greater likelihood of disgruntled citizenry, which could lead to higher chances for political change (and more freedom).
Of course, this is a rose-colored-glasses estimate. And just off the top of my head. Just throwing around this idea – several reasonable criticisms/concerns have already been made, including yours.
Fair enough, this is all very reasonable concerns, IMO.
The thing is, economic sanctions are one of the main arrows in our quiver that don’t involve making big explosions happen. As laudable as the free flow of ideas is as a goal, I don’t think it necessarily outweighs other concerns that would trigger sanctions but fall short of military action. Right now we primarily negotiate with our wallets and our fists. Where our wallets are concerned, we have to have both a carrot *and *stick approach, sanctions and incentives. You can’t have just incentives, otherwise you basically just start paying everyone else to “behave,” and all they have to do to get more money is to threaten to “misbehave” some more. That only leaves the fists as a negotiating tool, and I don’t want that…
Actually, in the short- to medium-term it would probably lead to more strife and less prosperity, especially in Saudi Arabia and Russia and Iran. Cuba would probably not be much affected, except to the extent they lose trade with Europe, assuming the Europeans go along with it. North Korea would also become less stable as China becomes less stable.
That sounds rather less than plausible. I don’t think you can transfer all of China’s manufacturing infrastructure and citizenry all that easily to Africa - India would no doubt benefit.
But, thinking about oil, I am not sure Nigeria can make up the slack if nobody buys Saudi and Iranian oil. And we would have to pick and choose which countries in Africa we sanction.
It doesn’t seem to be working out that way with Iran, although we are trying to stop them from developing ICBMs rather than opening up the Internet.
It is really, really hard to do things to other countries, for their benefit. Enlightened self-interest works out better, more often than not, and this ain’t that.
Regards,
Shodan
I certainly agree with this sentiment. Thanks for the reasonable criticism and concerns about this off-the-wall idea.
Do people honestly believe that the United States government has ever given a damn about human rights and democracy? We do have a nasty habit of overthrowing democracies and installing right wing dictators.
How anyone believes that this country has any moral authority is beyond me.
A complete reset is far too much, but tying trade to the good behavior of other countries is not a bad idea.
I’ve long thought that we should have tariffed China for it’s human rights and environmental track records. It is one thing to produce a good at a lower cost due to inherent factors, but doing so at the cost of abuse or pollution should not be condoned.
You don’t want to cut off trade, trade promotes peace and cooperation. Countries that trade with each other tend not to war with each other. Trade brings not only the governments and economies together, but the culture as well. Trade benefits all countries, and prosperous countries tend to be less volatile and violente than poor ones.
Since I would be in favor of enacting tariffs to encourage China or other nations to treat their population and workers well, and to preserve the environment, I would also be in favor of a tariff to encourage the free flow of information. I wouldn’t be doing anything drastic, just imposing trade only minimal restrictions or tariffs.
OTOH, this experiment in the free flow of information may not be working out as well as you may like. A decade ago, I would have agreed with the first sentence of the last paragraph of your OP wholeheartedly and without reservation. After meeting trolls, both profesional and amature, and seeing how the free flow of information can be corrupted and co-opted to nefarious ends, I don’t know that we are providing a shining example, or that others should emulate us, we don’t always have the best intentions, and even when we do, don’t always achieve them.
China could pull the same thing, and show that our free flow of information, the lack of gatekeeping as to what is TRUE and what is ACCEPTABLE is what is dividing and fracturing our country and communities. That in order to preserve peace, that information must be contained and controlled. They could threaten to throw tariffs on our goods, or even export taxes and quotas on what we import from them, until we acceded to their demands of sanitizing our information sphere of any dissenting and dangerous thoughts.