The Morality of Trading With China
It is 2:30 P.M. in the life of an average teenager. As he arrives home from school he turns on the television and begins to channel surf. Like most teenagers he stops on channel 28, MTV. The station is broadcasting seven different bands, live, from the Tibetan Freedom Concert. Suddenly an MTV reporter flashes onto the screen, she is interviewing Zack de la Rocha from the band Rage Against the Machine. He urges the viewers to get involved in order to stop the human rights violations occurring in Tibet and to free the country. Americans are exposed to this politically, economically, and morally controversial issue almost every day. As one begins to delve into the huge quantities of information available on the subject, it becomes quite clear that Zack is correct when he says there are terrible human rights violations taking place in Tibet and that Tibet is occupied by China against its own will. Many activists urge the American government to enact an embargo to pressure China into releasing Tibet, claiming that trade with the country is immoral. Morality, however, should not be a consideration when dealing in foreign policy.
To claim that morals should play an instrumental role in American trade and business affairs with China, as well as with the world, would be to go against the very premise on which our country's economy is built. The United States is a capitalist country and thus subscribes to a type of economy within which only the strong will survive. Businesses fiercely compete with one another to put the other out of business. This obviously does not seem morally correct, but when approached from the business's perspective is justifiable. Morality simply does not find a home in business practices because it is not within that business's best interest. The United States is a giant business. By cutting its trade with the Chinese government it would be doing serious injury to both the US and Chinese economies. Thousands of Chinese labors would be put out of work and faced with starvation, causing a catastrophe that would be greater than the one currently occurring in Tibet. In conclusion, it is not in the United State or China's best interest to discontinue trade.
An activist claims that it is morally wrong to trade with China. Does this not seem to be a valid point, even faced with the knowledge that American's are functioning for their own best interest? The answer is no, an activist making such a claim is quite clearly hypocritical. Chances are this same activist can be found perusing the isles of a local Wal-Mart, a shining example of a capitalist business. While in Wal-Mart, does this same activist stop to question the morality of the fine establishment whose isles he now walks? Does he think about all the families that the store has left jobless by driving out the local businesses? Does the activist then storm out of the store promising never to shop there again because it is morally wrong? The answers to all these questions are the same, no. The shopper continues to do business at Wal-Mart because it is within his best interest. He may be able to find necessary items at a lower cost than a local business realtor, and therefore his actions are justifiable. Currently, in Tibet, China is acting in a similar fashion as perhaps Wal-Mart. China, like Wal-Mart, is strong establishment, which moves into and takes over its surroundings. China is assimilating the Tibetan culture into theirs, while our very own Wal-Mart destroys the lives of the local merchants whom own the generation after generation of family businesses. Every day companies are created, bought out, or turned bankrupt, but in American business as we know it only the best interest of the country is concerned. The consumer does not question the morality of buying from a large discount store because it is in his best interest, therefore the United States should not question the morality of trading with China for it to is in its best interest. Still the persistent activist will produce a number of responses to the preceding arguments: Is it not true that there are awful human right violation occurring in Tibet? How can the loss of a few jobs be compared to the loss of people's freedom? More importantly, would an embargo not certainly put more pressure on the Chinese to free Tibet?
It is an indisputable fact that there are human rights violations occurring in Tibet. Any American would agree the violation of these rights is immoral. Trading with China, however, does not in any way indicate that the United States endorses China's actions and therefore should not be considered an immoral act. As for the comparison of job loss to personal freedom, they are quite similar. There is only a difference in the severity associated with both, but the underlining element, the destruction of one's way of life, remains the same. Since the underling principle is identical in both cases more weight should not be associated with one over the other. Thus, morality still should not be a consideration. The United States has a fair history dealing with boycotts: some worked, others didn't. It would be difficult to say whether such an action would produce the desired result of freeing Tibet, but because of China's strength the odds of such a maneuver working is slim. This step could actually provoke the Chinese into doing more harmful acts in Tibet. The only definite occurrence due to a boycott would be the suffering of the lower class workers of both Tibet and China, whom would starve without their jobs. Obviously a decision leading to such disaster would also be consider immoral. For good reason morality has been left out of business and should obviously remain there.
A wise man once said the business of America is business. He did not, however, say the business of America is other peoples business. Acting as a business, the United States does not guide herself on the morality of decisions made by the countries with which she trades, but rather by the amount of prosperity which she can gain by doing business with them. By looking out for its own interest the United States has survived for the past 223 years, such actions have clearly worked. It would be safe to assume that if the country is going to survive in the future it must continue to put the best interest of its people first.