The west is constantly pushing for stuff like this in every trade policy with China and others...
There’s a limit to how much leverage any one side has on a sovereign countries policies (and how much they actually enforce them when they agree).
There’s also the question of the benefits of having China at all in these deals, some concessions and a growing dependence on western markets from initial deals is better than no deals.
Plus a wealthier China is good for the world and the billion people coming out of poverty, getting educated, and slowly becoming an advanced economy.
> There’s a limit to how much leverage any one side has on a sovereign countries policies (and how much they actually enforce them when they agree).
I’m not advocating for anyone controlling sovereign Chinese policies. They can continue their awful anti-humanitarian policies, fraud, IP theft, etc. I just don’t want my country aiding and abetting it. At very least I want my fellow citizens to be able to make informed purchasing decisions.
And I’m all for lifting people out of poverty, but I’d rather do it in a country with some minimum base line respect for human rights and integrity, and where my purchasing dollars don’t end up propping up some dictatorial system that bullies other countries.
The UK kept trade with the US when slavery there was rampant. Any country will have hiccups throughout its development.
It's convenient but counterproductive to categorize every argument against yours as "whatabouttism".
> The UK kept trade with the US when slavery there was rampant.
And we’re I a citizen of the UK in this tortured analogy (with my contemporary morals and all that), I wouldn’t want my money supporting that.
> Any country will have hiccups throughout its development.
Right, but we don’t have to support those “hiccups”. Anyway, China had 60 million hiccups in the last century. They’re all out of hiccup passes.
> It's convenient but counterproductive to categorize every argument against yours as "whatabouttism".
Not every argument, only the ones that start with suggest I can’t criticize China until <other countries that I presumably support> are completely without blame. Such as yours.
There’s a limit to how much leverage any one side has on a sovereign countries policies (and how much they actually enforce them when they agree).
There’s also the question of the benefits of having China at all in these deals, some concessions and a growing dependence on western markets from initial deals is better than no deals.
Plus a wealthier China is good for the world and the billion people coming out of poverty, getting educated, and slowly becoming an advanced economy.