Might I therefore ask how is having an even more powerful missile system aimed at them and refusing to trade going to make China any more inclined to be friendly to the US? 
Thanks Colly…I didn’t do any research on this subject really. And often I am not able to always hear the report accurately. (My car radio sucks!) It relives me to know that our businesses aren’t behaving even more unethically with less fortunate countries. Although I do remember hearing something rather recently about abuses in Indochina in the garment industry. They companies were producing Tommy stuff. Once again didn’t get the full report having tuned in somewhere in the middle.
I guess I was just opperating under some false assumptions. I also thought that it was an American company that was responsible for the Bopal incident. I could be completely off the mark on that one. Talking out of my ass I guess! Wouldn’t be the first time. Ha!
I guess it isn’t much of a stretch for anyone to realize that I firmly believe in human rights, here and abroad. I am absolutely opposed to the death penalty being given to anyone under the age of 18. I am opposed to broad sweeping laws that would automatically require children under 18 be tried as adults. I believe that our behavior in this country in regards to these issues does display a lack of mercy towards our own citizen, our children in particular. This is why I find it interesting that people would expect us to be mindful of human rights abuses abroad. I have to agree with London Calling on this issue. I know many will think they are unrelated but placing a higher value on the sanctity of life is what’s really at issue here. And you can display gross indifference to that any number of policies whether they be social, economic, or political. Does that make sense?
Needs2know
I’m speaking in the aggregate. Of course there are bad boys. However, in general I believe that one can say int’l companies * directly * operating in country usually have a better record in terms of employee relations, environment etc. than domestics, all things being equal.
I think you have to be careful here, I believe, and I could be wrong here, that these are often local sub-contractors. On one hand, the international company should have some understanding of what sub-contractors are doing. On the other hand, there are limits to how much you can know.
I’m not trying to whitewash bad behaviour abroad, only contextualize things.
Union Carbide. I do believe they are/were American. Again, one accident, however horrible, does not mean the aggragate record is worse than locals. Nor does it necessarily mean the record is good by US/European domestic standards. I’m noting this relative to local practice.
Other than these nitpicks, I agree with the thrust of your commentary, it is easy to see a double standard. Mind you I am not necessarily against any of the items you list per se. However, one can see the problem.
I believe that the US can influence china’s policy on human rights, but only to a VERY limited extent. We have no business poking our noses into the domestic affairs of another country-particularly one with a totally different culture. What I find incomprehensible:
-China practices (and gets away with) mercantilism! Our trade deficit with China is enormous-and getting worse! wE HAVE ALLOWED cHINA TO DESTROY MANY DOMESTIC INDUSTRYS-AND WE GET NOTHING IN RETURN! mOST cHINESE GOODS ARE LOW QUALITY AND SHODDILY MADE-EVER BUY A PAIR OF cHINESE-MADE SHOES? (i DID-THEY FELL APART)Meanwhile, we have almost NO domestic footware industry left-the Chinese have put it out of business.
I am really scared (though our fat-cat union bosses don’t seem to care)that soon, major portions of our auto industry will be packed up and shipped to China: I predict that GM will shortly begin sourcing engines and transmissions in China-where will that leave the UAW? But Bill Clinton didn’t care-as long as the DNC was getting regular payoff from the Chinese! wait and see-our “leaders” will wind up selling American jobs to china!
Collounsbury, continuing the hijack about pharmaceutical companies operating abroad - The Washington Post did a series of articles a few months ago on this. Some drug companies have been testing drugs in countries where the laws and understanding of “informed consent” are sketchy at best. If I remember correctly, foreign testing doesn’t count towards FDA approval (for which you need to have tested on a certain # of subjects), but it does help them with the research and development process. I’ll try to link to the articles- I think you have to pay to access articles more than 2 weeks old, so I won’t link if that’s the case. But there is a more credible source than John le Carre. 
I do generally agree with you that U.S. companies treat their employees much better than many local companies in the developing world.
Hey Maggie…I know the guy’s a fiction writer but he sounded pretty well informed to me. The interviewer talked about him living in Africa some years ago etc. Besides I’m just cynical enough to believe a lot of this stuff especially after seeing a doctor on Dateline/20/20 or something last week. She was being interviewed about her work with Africans suffering from sleeping sickness. Evidently it’s back pretty badly in Africa again. It’s also fatal if not treated. Now get this, the treatment is a mixture of arsenic and another ingredient that is used to make anti-freeze! It has to be dispensed with glass syringes because it melts the plastic ones! It destroys the parasite that infects the blood but also kills the patient in about I think 7 or 8% of the cases. A new vein has to be used for each injection because it destorys the vein. The thing is there is a modern treatment for the disease but the company that makes it won’t market it for this disease because it isn’t profitable. So in the mean time this doctor is down there struggling to save these people’s lives and her funding is also getting ready to run out.
Needs2know
Hey Maggie…I know the guy’s a fiction writer but he sounded pretty well informed to me. The interviewer talked about him living in Africa some years ago etc. Just because the guy specializes in fiction doesn’t mean much of his material isn’t based on fact. Besides I’m just cynical enough to believe a lot of this stuff especially after seeing a doctor on Dateline/20/20 or something last week. She was being interviewed about her work with Africans suffering from sleeping sickness. Evidently it’s back pretty badly in Africa again. It’s also fatal if not treated. Now get this, the treatment is a mixture of arsenic and another ingredient that is used to make anti-freeze! It has to be dispensed with glass syringes because it melts the plastic ones! It destroys the parasite that infects the blood but also kills the patient in about I think 7 or 8% of the cases. A new vein has to be used for each injection because it destorys the vein. The injections are excruciating. The doctor commented on seeing grown men cry and these are people who are used to being uncomfortable in the first place. The thing is, there is a modern treatment for the disease but the company that makes it won’t market it for this disease because it isn’t profitable. So in the mean time this doctor is down there struggling to save these people’s lives and her funding is also getting ready to run out.
Needs2know
Needs2Know - that’s cool - I have no doubt he’s well informed, just looking for some evidence beyond the anecdotal.
Okay, anyone want to talk about China? US Trade policies?
For Collounsbury, Needs2Know - here’s some info on developing world drug trials - series was called “The Body Hunters”, from 12/17-12/22, 2000. Very depressing and interesting read.
Article 4 of 24, Article ID: 0101200090
Published on 01/05/2001, The Washington Post
DRUG TRIALS IN THE THIRD WORLD
In an effort to bring innovative medicines to a wider population, research-based pharmaceutical companies are conducting more clinical research studies in developing countries. This is an important and positive development, but The Post’s front-page series on testing medicines overseas [“The Body Hunters,” Dec. 17-Dec. 22] cast it in a negative light.
Your search terms appear 20 times in this article.
Complete Article, 652 words
Speaking from personal experience in the Middle East, I have found that most locals consider a job with a US company a prize. While we are stricter on some things (working hours mostly) we also take care of our people better. This is not charity, just enlightened self-interest. From this point of view, I have to say that US/Western companies are a good thing for the population in underdeveloped countries.
I believe the drugs thing was started by Oxfam. I have heard several interviews on the BBC talking about the high cost of anti HIV drugs in Africa and blaming the pharmaceutical companies for the high prices. Likewise complaining about some loans that were made or offered to African nations for the purpose. Several very catchy statements were made about pharmaceutical companies making war on underdeveloped nations.
Regards.
Testy.
Thanks for the cites, I’ll have to look them up.
Re sleeping sickness:
This is a fairly complicated issue as I recall. Firstly, Pharm companies have to make a profit. That’s what we do. That does mean that tropical diseases are neglected. And in some cases, like the case you note, some companies sit on their IT because it’s too troublesome to deal with. There are serious piracy issues. I don’t excuse that, but I do want to raise the wider context. Having to do business in Africa, I understand why some folks wash their hands. In a sense this is a case of market failure in terms of addressing human suffering – although if markets were not such basket cases over here… but ifs don’t get things done.
Developed world governmenatal support/subsidies for developing tropical medicines would be helpful. But frankly, there are lots of other issues to attack also.
Re China:
EGKelly: (1) I doubt Chinese competition was is the sole reason for declining competivity of American textile/clothing manufactures. (2) Seems to me there’s a contradiction between the low qual. complaint and Chinese mfg knocking aside US mfg. I could be wrong, but again, my impression is that most of the US market is fairly high end. Now here where I am I can see Chinese mfgs pushing out other low quality materials.
Suggestions, expensive high tech country should not try to compete in low quality shit mfgs, but take the upscale route. That’s what competition is all about. After all, Southern mfgs did the same to NE mfgs.
As for auto industry relocating to China, that seems highly unlikely. Aside from the protectionist reaction which would occur, one notes that even foreign mfgs have relocted production to the USA. It would appear that we are competitive when it comes to auto mfg.
First, a real linkety-link for Collounsbury & Needs2Know, re: drug companies and international experiments:
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/onassignment/theBodyHunters/index.htm
And you DON’T have to pay for the articles (I was incorrect in the Pit). Whoohoo!
Second, on relocation of jobs overseas. Shockingly (:D), I agree with Collounsbury - it makes sense for a wealthy, hi-tech country to focus on those industries and not fight for every last manufacturing-of-cheap-crap dollar.
For example, there was a recent article in the Wall Street Journal about America’s protectionist attitude about textiles - we give development aid to many countries while simultaneously restricting imports of their textiles or putting in place ridiculous source-rules (A Ugandan textile mill must use 70% American cotton in order to export their products here, or some such). Howabout we stop giving them economic aid, and just cut the trade barriers and restrictions on their exports? The rest of the world doesn’t understand the U.S.’ feelings of economic vulnerability.
Secondly, I think more and more competitiveness is going to be based on logistics - who can get their products into stores most efficiently, who can fulfill internet orders on a just-in-time basis, etc. So while labor costs for a certain good might be cheaper in China, the cost of moving the good from China to Ohio when the person in Ohio wants it can make up for the difference.
Already tracked this little fellow down. Interesting reading. I shall try to have some comments on this.
Otherwise I agree with your analysis on trade and development.
Collounsbury, should we have a separate thread - pharmaceutical companies, testing, developing world?
Possibly, but I have to be careful with such threads… Like the biotech threads since I carry a degree of bias.
On the larger issue of US trade and responsibility. But first I have to do some reading and reflection which given the large amount of rum I have ingested is not possible right now.
First, here are a list of some of the human rights concerns in China.
[ul]
[li]Hundreds if not thousands of suspected government opponents are jailed each year (in addition to the thousands of political prisoners already in detention). Some of these government opponents are people advocating for indpendence, aka separatists, e.g. in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region and the Tibet Autonomous region; others may members of relgious groups e.g. Catholics or Falun Gong followers.[/li][li]many of those suspects receive unfair trials or are detained without trial;[/li][li]released prisoners of conscience have been subject to police surveillance and harassment;[/li][li]torture and ill-treatment in prison remain widespread (according to a chinese official report, 126 people were tortured to death in custody in 1993 and 115 in 1994).[/li][li]China in the past few years has executed more people (death penalty) than the rest of the world combined;[/li][li]China continues to use forced labour in its prisons. The toy you have bought for your child might have been made by a buddhist monk who was beaten for failing to complete his daily assigned work (example taken from an Amnesty International case history.)[/li][li]Worker rights activists and union organisers have been summarily arrested.[/li][/ul]
In my opinion by agreeing to maintain normal economic relations with the Chinese government you are giving tacit approval to the abuses committed by it, especially since some of those human rights violations concern labour issues. The message I see from this attitude is “We don’t like what you do but we can profit by continuing to trade with you.” If anything continued economic relations should be tied to human rights improvements as verified by international organizations and/or the US State Department. I have spoken with several Chinese human rights (HR) activists and representatives of Chinese HR groups, in addition to Tibetan refugees in the USA, and of those people that expressed an opinion on the continuation of trade relations with China, the unanimous point of view was that the USA should legislate sanctions against China.
I read the comment that the USA is not perfect in its human rights record. I will be the first to agree with that, but I don’t see how this should prevent the USA from taking a moral stance on practices that it considers to be a violation of rights in other countries and making a unilateral decision on how trade with China should be affected. From an international standpoint any action that is a violation of international HR standards is a valid subject of criticism of another country.
It is very possible that other countries will continue to trade with China, but some countries could very well decide to adopt the USA position. If everyone had that attitude (I won’t institute sanctions until you do) then there would never be any form of international pressure. In addition the USA is such an important trade partner with China that US sanctions would have a big impact even if not followed by other countries.
Another point - while there are obvious parallels between a country’s standard of living and certain human rights (e.g. in particular workers rights), the parallel is not absolute. For example in Saudi Arabia which is a fairly wealthy country the human rights situation is appalling. So I don’t think one can say that an increase in wealth will automatically be followed by an improvement in citizen’s rights.
in a future post - my answers to the specific questions in the OP.
Yes, China is appalling in its HR record.
But, the big question of whether sanctions will work is ridiculously complicated, unless one simply takes an ideological view of it.
In the experience of the world so far, it appears that sanctions work against a government if:
1 - There are at least some democratic institutions in place, to allow for internal airing of a debate between the citizens of the country affected on exactly why the country is being sanctioned.
2 - The sanctions enjoy broad international support.
Both these conditions were in place for the sanctions that at least appeared to have an effect on South Africa in its apartheid days. Neither of these conditions are in place for China, and re Iraq, only condition 2 was ever in place, and as of today that is extremely shaky.
I don’t know about that Arnold, there’s something I find appealing but in the end… Are anti-death penalty folks in say France giving tacit approval to the death penalty by trading with the USA?
I agree one does have to weigh a moral calculus in here, but one also has to ask oneself the degree to which not trading really makes the statement one wants. Pantom I believe has raised the relevant problem here and I view the issue the way he seems to.
Fine, but do they have a significant support base in China so as to effect change? I’m going to guess the answer is no. In which case what do sanctions achieve? Well, they probably are easily painted as us vs them. E.g. Iraq. If they have effect, if, then they are likely to be seen by the domestic population --in the case where opposition does not for whatever reasons have a large network/audience at home-- as attacks on the country. Nationalism will trump human rights any day if they go head to head. The trick is not to do that.
Very much a Western consensus. A good consensus, but much of the world doesn’t see this as very valid. They see it as teh Rich countries finding yet another way to put on the poor guys. And, to be frank, the shaky and inconsistent way HR concerns are applied lead to this having a grain of truth. However, again, the issue is being able to achieve results.
We (meaning folks who read/write about these issues) call this the “virtuous Swede” position, in recoginition the Scandivanians record on this. However, it pretty much fails every time. I gotta do some work so I’ll skip the game theory explanation, but essentially we can usually count on people cheating.
International consensus is an absolute must. Even then sanctions are leaky. Starting up alone, to my knowledge, has always failed. (One could say perhaps Cuba is a marginal case of course)
Again, maybe. I’m sure there will be trade diversion and cheating. I’m also sure that such a unilateral decision will only strengthen the “antis” in China.
Well, Saudi is a bit of a special case. First, they did not “develop” a la China, they got found wealth. An essentially tribal society (and I use the term advisedly, not in the empty abusive way it often gets applied to the Mid EASt) went from zero to sixty in a one generation.
Economically their situation is quite different. First, they control a very significant portion of a highly liquid (hehe) and demanded commodity – e.g. look at Iraq. Put sanctions on Saudi Arabia and you have some serious hurt on the world economy. In addition, as the keeper of the two holies in Islamic religion, its got a very special status with Muslim countries. Another reason not to fuck with them unless you believe you have some very positive cost-benefit analysis.
China, while huge, makes widgets. Chinese leadership I am sure understands very well widgets can be made anywhere. Sanctions? Shift production to Indonesia. ERgo, China’s trade position is much, much more vulnerable than Saudi Arabia
True, but what we’ve seen largely --excluding the rentier states of the Gulf and others in similar positions which did not “build” their wealth-- is that increased wealth has generally led to increased demand for human rights etc.
Now, I wanna be clear, I’m no simplistic free-trader who thinks the market magically generates these things. Markets do not magically generate freedom, and I reject the simplistic equation between economics and liberty as a crock. Favoring instead a rather more complicated POV (I think, but maybe I’m a dummy): One has to painfully build the institutions and habits which go with respect for human rights, general good treatment of the population… They do not come automatically. Rather one has to be prepared to put pressure as well as offer assistance and encouragement. I see increase in wealth working hand in hand. But Saudi shows it doesn’t have to --leaving aside for the moment the pecularities of a rentier state(*).
(*: However there are signs, if one reads between the lines, of change in the Gulf.)
Arnold, thanks for your post, I look forward to your answers to the OP.
As usual, Collounsbury stated my response better than I could have. Economic sanctions only work if you have an international and internal consensus.
Without a massive movement by the Chinese population, external economic or military pressure will have zero effect on China’s human rights policies. For China to start cleaning up it’s act based on external pressures, it would have to ADMIT THERE IS A PROBLEM, which the Chinese government will never do. I can’t imagine China in the position of saying “Yes, we were wrong, we stopped these horrible abuses, we apologize, now please trade with us.” Change in China will come from within China - when the Chinese people get tired of being abused and stop believing the lies.
I don’t think that liberty directly follows from prosperity, and that the market takes care of everything. It’s untrue. But I do think that ideas follow trade, and liberty comes from greater access to ideas and information.
Arnold - what do you think about Collounsbury’s statement, here? Does the U.S. have a right to economically punish other countries based on human rights concerns without cleaning up our own act? I can see the frustration of the pooer countries - “Trade with us! Don’t condemn us for things that you also do, and make us perpetual little brothers at the economic table, and then pacify us with AID that goes mostly to pay for U.S. consultants.”
On Pharmacuticals in the 3rd World.
I read the WP articles. First, let me disclose that one of the firms mentioned in the article is my employer. I therefore feel compelled to walk a fine line in any comments I make, for professional reasons alone.
That aside, it seemed fair, however I do believe that the articles gave rather more credence to the aid groups than to the private firms. I won’t say this is wrong but I also feel that aide folk – who do great work on shoestring budgets quite frequently often are more than slightly self-righteous and not terribly realistic on what it take to get stuff done.
That said, the Pfizer trail sounds as if it ran into hubris problems and lack of understanding of 3rd world issues right from the get go. Boy do I know about these problems. Why do think I scored a bottle of Bacardi at ridiculous prices? My gut reaction is that the prime researcher went in with the typical (ist wordly) hubris and ideas of how to get things done. Then reality bit him in the ass.
I do see the corruption issues presented in the article. I work with them on a daily basis. We have serious issues --and recall I am not in the pharm sector.
This perhaps does deserve its own thread. I’ll hazard the opinion that idealistic answers aren’t going to fly. A lot of what is going to happen is going to be dirty. But perhaps I’m engaging in self-justification. I might be best served by refraining comment.