Beijing: Boycott or Engagement?

Recent events have put China in the spotlight once again as an oppressive regime that abused human rights and what not. China’s friendliness with Sudan, their alleged oppression of minorities in Tibet, and the upcoming Olympic Games in Beijing have led numerous western figures to denounce the regime, protest the Olympic torch relay and even call for boycotts of the Olympics. There is no easy answer, but let’s get real for a moment.

I don’t believe the Tibet situation has been handled very well. China should long ago have taken up on the offer to meet the Dalai Lama. He is not a separatist, and he could be the key to a peaceful normalisation if only Beijing would swallow their pride and start talking to him. While calling the crackdowns in Lhasa genocide is surely exaggerated, there probably have been mishandlings of the minority. In principle, Tibet should have the right to declare independence, but that may not even be the wish of the majority – the Dalai Lama does not call for independence, only greater autonomy.

I am also of the opinion that China (as many other nations) could do more to pressure Sudan in the case of Darfur. We should continue trying to convince China that action here is needed. Hardly a cause for boycott, though.

When it comes to freedom of speech in China, I generally take the optimistic stand that quite a lot is actually tolerated. I do not know, however, whether I would be able to write so openly on this blog if I were in China. (To any PRC readers: I’d love to hear your comments, if possible.)

These disagreements with China are to some a cause for boycotting the whole or parts of the Olympic Games. While the Olympics are a huge media event, it is still a very cheap shot for western politicians wanting to look good and human rights-oriented. The reality is that nobody can foresee a regular economic boycott – this would not be affordable to any western economy, especially not under the current downturn. Bashing the Chinese now is a hollow call with fairly few consequences.

Some then would argue that greater measures are needed. Michael D. Peabody writes today on the Spectrum Blog that free trade with China has not, as previously thought, lead to improvements on human rights, and that “as an individual consumer you do have the choice to effect a positive change in China, and you can vote with your wallet.”

I disagree. I think that human rights, while still not equal to Western Europe or America, have improved in China. And no matter what, we may never agree on which rights are fundamental. America historically have a tendency to promote on democracy and freedom of speech, while Europe is more focused on social security and living standards. Yes, China may lag behind in democracy, but their progress over the last decades in living standards, economic freedoms, quality of life, and also freedom of religion are staggering.

Furthermore, history should teach us that boycotts rarely actually give the wanted results. Think of Cuba, Iraq, North Korea, or even the Mohammad crisis. Economic sanctions sound nice and peaceful, but usually fail to deliver. There are things that we may disagree on with China, and they should not be overlooked. However, as stated previously on this blog, I believe engagement is a much more worthwhile option than boycott.

We Want More Money

As of today, public sector workers across Denmark are on strike, demanding unprecedented pay raises for healthcare workers, among others. While any individual may of course request a raise, I have absolutely no sympathy for the method employed here – nor the demands. For several reasons:

Refusing to do your job is hardly a way of gaining sympathy. Especially in vital services such as health care, but also in general. You want more money? Get another job that pays more. You just want to do your job better? Then stop whining and pull up your sleeves. You want a new job? Then go get one.

Preventing others by force from doing their jobs has no place in a free, democratic society. However, strikes like this call for everyone to stay home from work, even those who might actually be satisfied with current conditions. This is repulsive and almost mafia-like.

A raise for these income groups is not validated by their level of education and comparison to other groups in society. Hiking their pay checks as proposed would tip the balance and do harm to the overall health of the nation’s economy. It seems that for Union and left-wing types, the prevailing sentiment is one of “we want more”, as if the State had a big gold pot for hand-outs to the self-imposed needy. In fact, the money they are demanding comes from of the rest of us. Why do you want my money?

Much can be said about the state of health care, etc. in Denmark, but just pouring more money into the workers’ pockets won’t solve any problems. More workers may be needed, yes. But even more so, greater efficiency and professionalism in the sector could boost quality of service, without necessarily breaking the budget. The easiest solution to this is outsourcing; if we let private providers handle many of these tasks, they could do it more efficiently for the same funds. And perhaps even with better working conditions and higher pay for those employees who meet the qualifications.

There are many good things about Denmark; the culture of strikes is not one of them. This method reeks of 19^th century Marxism and should have been long dead and buried.