Collounsbury, didn’t mean to put you in an awkward position regarding your employer or make you the SDMB apologist for pharmaceutical companies. And I agree with you about the tone of the article and the credence given to aid organizations over private businesses. (My former employer, Chemonics International, ended up in a not-too-flattering front page Washington Post “expose” on the foreign aid biz not too long ago - I’d email it to you if I had your addy).
I found the articles because I wanted to provide some context to this exchange:
No problem, I was not complaining. Developments have clearly outstripped my past experience, although given my own area I suppose I should have guessed. My email, by the way, for all interested is simply my handle at yahoo.com
I don’t make it all that readily available for the obvious reasons.
sorry for the delay, it’s hard for me to find time to type up long GD responses (which is usually why I don’t post here.)
Collounsbury: 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?
By trading with the USA, the French government is saying “your death penalty practices are not as gross a violation of human rights as the excesses of (e.g.) the apartheid regime in South Africa”. (N.B. Even though I am an opponent of the death penalty, I would also agree with this point of view.) This raises the issue - Is the HR situation in China grievous enough to warrant strong sanctions? My answer to that would be yes.
Collounsbury: 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.
So which method do you think would make the correct statement?
Collounsbury: 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.
Any economic hardship will also encourage dissatisfaction with the leadership of the country and provide an impetus to change. I don’t count on the popular support being the motivation for change so much as the fact that new leaders will eventually abandon the autocratic ways. The increase of democracy in the former Soviet Union as promoted by Gorbachev is most often attributed to reasons having to do with the economy, not necessarily the desire by the leadership to compy with international Human Rights standards.
Collounsbury: 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.
I think this is a better use of the west’s economic and military might than supporting oppressive regimes as was common during the cold war.
Collounsbury: 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.
Of course. Nonetheless there will be more countries supporting sanctions if one influential country adopts them than if no one does.
Collounsbury: 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
I agree that the comparison between China and Saudi Arabia is not exact. My point was that a country having wealth and a free-market system does not necessarily mean that the human rights situation will improve. Though typically with increased wealth comes increased education and, it is to be hoped, a better educated population will be more able to protest government abuse. It seems to me that you are saying here that China is more vulnerable to economic sanctions than e.g. Saudi Arabia. Does this mean that you would support sanctions if there were an international consensus behind them? Do you then think the USA should spearhead resolutions at the UN encouraging sanctions against China?
1) Do you think we should stop trading with China until they clean up their human rights record? Given the misinformation that regularly comes out of Beijing, what would it take to convince you that things were better? 10 years of positive Amnesty International reports? The fall of the communist government?
I don’t care if China remains communist or not. IMHO several years of improved human rights records as witnessed by UN observers and/or NGOs such as Amnesty International would be sufficient to change the position on sanctions.
2) Do you think that China would change anything about its practices based on the say-so of the U.S. and the threat of an end to trade?
I think that the current leadership would probably not change their practices but the next generation of leaders would.
3) Do you think that the presence of U.S. companies in China helps or hurts Chinese workers and citizens? Why?
I think it benefits mostly the US companies. I’m sure some companies might pay slightly hire salaries than chinese companies, but since a corporation is in chage of maximizing profits I don’t think that they would provide an environment that is so favourable as to effect any real change in general working conditions.
4) How do you answer the arguments of the pro-trade side that greater political freedom will come through greater economic freedom and exposure to American business practices, products (the internet, cell phones) and ideas?
I guess I’ve addressed that issue above.
5) The PNTR agreement has strict language about child and convict labor - the U.S. has the right to close our markets to goods produced by children and convicts. Does this make a difference in the way you view the agreement?
If I were convinced that the USA would strictly enforce this rule and that independent observers were able to verify that these conditions were met I personally would be less opposed to the agreement. Working conditions in China (i.e. the use of forced labour) are one of the main reasons I support sanctions against China. As I said above, I find repugnant the idea that the 99 cent toy that I bought at Pic’N’Save might have been made by a prisoner that was beaten.
BTW, pantom, didn’t mean to ignore you, but I think that I’ve addressed your points in my post above.
magdalene also asked: Does the U.S. have a right to economically punish other countries based on human rights concerns without cleaning up our own act?
I think it’s fairly well accepted that the truth of a statement does not depend on the person saying it. So that the statement “genocide is deplorable” is not invalidated even if the person making the statement is opposed to equal rights for woman (as an example). I believe a country is justified in supporting the issues that it thinks are important even if they do not have a perfect record in all areas.
Thanks for the reply Arnold. Let me try to give this a worthy response.
I begin with the question, will sanctions achieve the desired goal. My analysis is no.
Whatever method is effective. If the conditions are in place for sanctions to work, then fine, but they have to be widely supported and multi-lateral. Otherwise they are easily painted as one big boy beating up on someone. Utterly losing their point then.
Economic Impact, Effects
Nope, can’t agree with that Arnold. It may, if there is some sort of domestic base which will direct frustration, discontent against the government. However, it can just as easily end in an xenophobic, dem ferrigners are out to get us reaction. That is more or less what has occured in Iraq. Of course nothings 100%, but economic hardship may or may not provide an impetus to change. It depends on where power lies.
Will they? Because of sanctions, in the absence of popular support for change? I think past historical examples indicate this is not the case.
Hmm, well Gorbachev already wanted to move towards a liberal version of the Soviet regime. In any case this was internally generated economic collapse. Not something one could pin on outsiders very easily.
Re Sanctions, Consensus
Well, maybe, but I don’t think one can assume that HR is going to ever be applied in a fully just way. That’s int’l politics for you. And you have to be aware that our perception of the issue is not the ‘world’s.’ Legitimacy is a very fine cloth and it can be very easy to provoke nationalist backlashes. Look at Austria --not precisely the same context but illustrative of the narrow line between productive outside pressure and pressure which in fact produces a backlash and moves you backwards.
the “virtuous Swede” position
It still fails.
Impact
I agree.
No, I don’t think I would support economic sanctions at this stage. My uninformed analysis is that presently the calculus is in favor of trade and greater chinese contact with the West generating, slowly but surely internal change. The 2nd or next generation which you mention in your other reply is not going to be automatically better, they have to hae a basis to work from, economic and social. Insofar as I think sanctions will undermine that, I don’t think they serv the goal. The change is better if it is evolutionary, rooted in domestic consensus rather than simply responsive. That’s my analysis based on what I see in Africa – where lots of HR lip service is paid, but on the ground morals are in keeping.
Now, I would revise this position in case of a Tiannamen II type situation, or if China stepped up aggressive activity vis-a-vis nieghbors or internal minorities.
However, again my uninformed opinion is that there is more to be gained in the long run from positive engagement presently. I might have a different opinion if I was a China specialist of course.
Now in re your position re Us companies mostly benefitting themselves, I have to diagree. Private investment is slowly but surely generating new, independant sources of living for chinese. No longer are all workers dependent on the whims of the state or the local party apparatus. That in itself reduces the amount of oppression which the state can bring to bear.
AWThis raises the issue - Is the HR situation in China grievous enough to warrant strong sanctions? My answer to that would be yes.
CollounsburyI begin with the question, will sanctions achieve the desired goal. My analysis is no.
and
CollounsburyNow, I would revise this position (note from AW: his postion on whether we should apply sanctions) in case of a Tiannamen II type situation, or if China stepped up aggressive activity vis-a-vis nieghbors or internal minorities.
How do you reconcile those two statements? You are pretty much saying “I agree that sanctions are necessary, even if they wouldn’t be effective, in case of gross human rights (HR) violations”. We just disagree on what exactly constitutes “gross HR violations”.
Collounsbury: Whatever method is effective.
And those effective methods would be…
Collounsbury: Nope, can’t agree with that Arnold. It may, if there is some sort of domestic base which will direct frustration, discontent against the government.
And in China, that would be:
a) HR and free speech activists, e.g. those people that were at Tienanmen square;
b) The internal minorities you mention;
c) People that hope for more free market practices in China;
d) Whatever other groups I forgot.
I think the popular support for change is growing.
Then why all these articles I read that this collapse was caused in large part by actions of the USA, namely:
a) The USA plowing money after World War II into Western Europe to add reconstruction, but of course not giving any money to countries behind the iron curtain;
b) The USA engaging the Soviet Union in an arms race that ruined the country in their attempt to maintain parity with a more prosperous nation.
Collounsbury: Well, maybe, but I don’t think one can assume that HR is going to ever be applied in a fully just way. That’s int’l politics for you.
I have often heard the argument “we can’t be perfect so we shouldn’t try at all”. I always reject that argument. One should strive for better policies, not throw up one’s hands in the air and say “it’s all hopeless.”
Collounsbury: And you have to be aware that our perception of the issue is not the ‘world’s.’ Legitimacy is a very fine cloth and it can be very easy to provoke nationalist backlashes.
That is why, when the USA demands human rights improvements in other countries, it should rely on international covenants and agreements that have been signed by the country in question, and commonly held international HR standards, not the standards that are particular to the USA. China has ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Hold them to enforce the provisions set forth in that document.
Collounsbury:* Look at Austria --not precisely the same context but illustrative of the narrow line between productive outside pressure and pressure which in fact produces a backlash and moves you backwards.*
Again the question arises, what would productive outside pressure have been? I see many mentions of “sanctions don’t work” but not a lot of “here’s what we should do to signify our displeasure of the situation in your country.”
Collounsbury: However, again my uninformed opinion is that there is more to be gained in the long run from positive engagement presently. I might have a different opinion if I was a China specialist of course.
Which is why I mentioned the opinion of Chinese and Tibetan Human Rights activists (see my post above). I personally rely on their analysis since they are more knowledgeable than I am on the issue.
Collounsbury: Now in re your position re Us companies mostly benefitting themselves, I have to diagree. Private investment is slowly but surely generating new, independant sources of living for chinese. No longer are all workers dependent on the whims of the state or the local party apparatus. That in itself reduces the amount of oppression which the state can bring to bear.
What you say is true. My meaning is that corporations doing business in China are NOT doing it with the goal of improving the Human Rights situation. So if the corporation encounters a case where someone’s rights are being violated, and it stands to profit by those violations, it might very well turn a blind eye to those violations. (One might even argue that it would be the corporation’s duty to its shareholders to turn a blind eye to those violations, but I don’t mean to start a debate on the ethics of corporations.)
Okay Arnold, I may be distracted by someone who needs to be educated (rather less satisfying than this debate, but as you know I get all irascable after my Bacardi treatments – no results yet on that front, except concerns about the cost)
AW
Well, my position is (a) sanctions might be necessary given a certain level of HR violations — there is obviously no objective measure, but given I subscribe to Pantom’s analysis, I would say a level which attracts a wide international consensus— sanctions are called for. (b) that sanctions are only effective in a given set of circumstances, per Pantom’s analysis.
I should say that there are in fact two kinds of sanctions. (A) Where actual behaviour change per Pantom’s analysis is possible (B) Where the subject of the sanctions has just gone that one step so far that regardless sanctions are called for but one does not really expect change. “B” I reserve for the truly heinous, such as perhaps the Pol Pot regime, I think our dear barbarians the Taliban are crossing over into that territory. I apply B with the greatest reluctance (as if I really have any say in this?!) because of humanitarian concerns.
Well, there is a whole spectrum of choices out there. From blockades to trade engagements. Different methods may be called for at different stages. Note: I also think we have to pay attention to the wider world stage, per my position in re Iraq. When sanctions, even for good purposes such as punishing HR violations, become perceived by a wide section of the Int’l community as bullying or something along those lines, one has to ask if they do not become counter-productive. You know your motives, others don’t in the final analysis.
Sure, but to my reading it’s not in a position to truly leverage change in the prevailing official practices in China. I readily admit that I am not a China specialist nor do I truly interest myself in China very much. My analysis here is really somewhat abstract. That being said, it strikes me that China presently would be better served by engagement in order to support the “openness” faction as I believe engagement, again presently, has potential for bringing more change than sanctions. I believe sanctions would simply give power to the “fuck em all, lets become Burma/North Korea” faction in the CPC. Those guys are still a real power and they can still, to my knowledge, turn the clock back.
In re Soviet Union and my view collapse was self-generated:
Well, this is a bit of a thorny question and I don’t think it is fully relevant to the question at hand. Suffice it to say that in my view US-Soviet Bloc arms comp effects are marginally exaggerated. The Soviet system firstly was a closed one, they didn’t do much trade (relatively) outside of the “fraternal socialist” nations. As such, their collapse, economic as it was, depended on internally generated problems. US trade or non-trade was not strictly relevant (yes there is grain but one suspects they could get other sources if they had to, terribly complex in the final analysis.)
So, it really is a very different scenario.
Now, Arnold, that’s not my argument. I’m trying to inject a note of caution into the HR concept. It will not be fully justly applied. That’s life. That means that there will be at minimum a grain of truth to largely 3rdWorld complaints its just a tool of the rich boys to lord it over the poor boys. So, that means one has to be careful in how one approaches your fights and how one puts pressure. I’m definitely not saying do nothing, I’m saying be aware, and make sure your awareness of pitfalls shapes your policy choices. Otherwise you may do more harm than good.
Sorry, but I don’t think that gets us around the problem. A lot of this stuff is paper, useful for putting pressure but doesn’t trump what internal standards really are. Here in Egypt there’s been what I found to be an incredibly wrong-headed prosecution of a one Saad Eddeen Ibrahim, professor and HR activist. Clearly politically motivated, but I find little support on the street. Why, the government has successfully cast the issue as an outsiders versus us issue — SEI took money and stuff from the EU. Internally this is seen as a kind of treason. That is the problem I am talking about, how carefully one must nurture this.
Well, frankly I don’t have a good answer. But let me repeat, I’m not saying that sanctions absolutely don’t work but that they are hard to make work. One has to do the groundwork, get widespread support and also work on getting internal support. Of course, there are many levels of sanctions. Sometimes symbolic, culturally oriented sanctions work, snubbing gets the point across. It depends on the situation.
I know, but to be frank as much as love em, lots of HR and Environ people don’t have a good grasp of the realities of what can be achieved. I’m reluctant to go with sanctions until other methods fail to pan out.
On Corporate Responsibility
Of course not!
Now here is a pressure point. Certainly int’l campaigns to force compliance by multinationals (and by extension their local sub-contractors, although one should be reasonable about the amount of continued due diligence a mn should be required in re local subcontractors practices, if only bec evil bosses send guys like me out to uncomfortable places to look at stuff. Heh) have their place. And I think have to be an integral part of using “engagement” to improve conditions. Along with careful, informed support for internal groups pushing for change.
Well, I hope this makes my POV clearer. Mind you I am not claiming this way is necessarily superior. It’s my gut analysis given my limited range of experiences and reading. I don’t know there are real answers here, and let me add I have immense respect for the HR community, so please don’t let my differing with them come off as dissing them.
Well Collounsbury you have certainly given me food for thought on the issue. I was waiting to hear from a Chinese HR activist I know, but the article he sent me detailing reasons for supporting sanctions had only the general points that I mentioned above.
I do see your point of view, and obviously out approaches are not so different that I need to roll my eyes in exasperation.
If I do run across some more detailed explanations, I will post them in this thread. Until then, thank you for presenting your cogent and well-reasoned objections.
