Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Tim Daneliuk
wrote:


Sigh OK, so what is *your* answer to getting the repressive policies
of the Chinese abated. More cultural exchanges? Folk dancing? Asking
them "pretty please"? Cutting off trade?



Cutting off trade.


It won't work the way you want it to. The "luxury" of freedom requires
that the society be able to afford it. A broke society cannot afford the
niceties of democracy because they are always one step ahead of
starvation (Think: Modern Russia).

Note that desparately poor people are not usually first in line to fight
for democratic revolution, or if they are it is largely ineffective -
they're too busy trying to just survive and don't have the wealth and
tools required to overthrow the established system. (Think: The French
Revolution "by the people" that was unnecessarily violent, ended badly,
and led to the establishment of something arguably worse than the
monarchy). Rich people typically are too few in number to make much of a
difference one way or the other though they can try and buy some
improvement (which typically just leads to official corruption). It
takes a critical mass of middle-class people to force issues of
democracy and freedom in most cases. (Think: The American Revolution
populated by farmers, merchants, traders, and wealthy aristocrats that
tore off the shackles of one of the most powerful nations of its time.)

Terminating trade with China, if effective, would primarily impoverish
their economy such that no effective liberal democratic reform would
ever happen. But by trading with them, we encourage the formation of
their emergent middle-class. Sooner or later, these people will throw
off the shackles of an oppressive government.

IOW: Capitalism Precedes Durable Democracy
(But the latter does not guarantee the former)

Sidebar

Democracy has to be earned by its participants - it cannot be bestowed
by a 3rd party (no matter what the Neocons think). The most a 3rd party
can ever do is create the environment in which Democracy can take hold -
i.e., Remove impediments like Sadaam and the Taliban. But even so, the
onus lies on the indigenous peoples to do this for themselves. The
greatest fear I have about today's hostilities is not that we ought not
to have done it (we did the right thing) but that our leadership (on
*both* sides of the polical spectrum) expect too much in the aftermath.
We've done the heavy lifting, now it time for the Afghans and Iraqis to
do what's needed for themselves.

My other fear is that Western politicans of all stripes expect too much
when they ask for "democracy" in the region. In the SOTN speech last
night Bush said we had to accept that democracy would "look different"
in the Middle East when accomplished. I agree, but I wonder just how
"different" a democracy he (and all the other politicians) are actually
willing to accept. The same holds true for China, Cuba, Mongolia, North
Korea and all of the other collectivist paradises around the world. As
they democratize, it will not necessarily be the Western model and we
may as well all get used to it.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/