https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/jun/22/china-canada-relations-xinjiang-human-rights

I'll be on the maple syrup tonight.

So I've just written to an electronics review site to start including information about sourcing of materials and start taking human rights abuses into account when awarding rewards. Especially in the cheaper segments it's all Chinese products.

So I've just written to an electronics review site to start including information about sourcing of materials and start taking human rights abuses into account when awarding rewards. — Benkei

Interesting and good one! China is powerful (and probably unstoppable in some countries of Africa and America...) due to this development of "cheap" electronic devices where all the rich entrepreneurs go just to build with zero costs. I see you are interested if we can block or at least penalized China, I guess the European Union has to do something better and be brave against Xi Jinping threats.
Here in Spain, a political party called "Podemos" put a warrant against Zara and Inditex for having their industries in China, Bangladesh, India, etc... Trying to make them put it on Spain or an European country. I don't know how is going but at least Zara paid a huge amount of money by the penalty of having those companies in these countries.
Also, interesting fact, "Real Institute El Cano" which is responsible for the Spanish image and language along the world, is trying to make "again" good relationships between Spain and Hispanoamerica because they see how silently China is getting more deeply in the economies of countries like Mexico, Paraguay, Ecuador, Honduras, etc...
While the new prime of Minister of Ecuador wants to work with Spain and Europe, Daniel Ortega as Prime Minister of Nicaragua, wants to be with China. I guess Nicaragua will have a bad future in the coming years...

Do you have links in English to those cases against inditex and zara? Could be a blueprint for more.

In an ideal world, we would be raising tariffs. Not a democracy? Bam, 25% Mark up. Human rights abuses? Here's another 25%.

I'm all for global economic integration because ultimately that's the way to peace but the playing field needs to be level and workers protected.

Do you have links in English to those cases against inditex and zara? Could be a blueprint for more. — Benkei

I want to share with you three important links.

http://www.izquierdadiario.es/De-explotar-costureras-gallegas-a-ninos-en-Bangladesh-el-secreto-de-Inditex-y-Amancio-Ortega

Sorry the one above is in Spanish but trust me is so worthy to have it because it explains so good how Inditex is guilty of slavery. Try to translate the page with Google translator.

https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/zara-hit-by-slave-labour-allegations-argentina/
This one is in English but it comes from Argentina.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/english.elpais.com/elpais/2019/05/21/inenglish/1558430833_506530.html%3foutputType=amp

This one also in English where political party "Podemos" is against Inditex.

thanks. Google translate resulted in fomenting legible and understandable. :up:

https://chinanever.com/categories/phones-not-made-in-china they have some other categories as well.

thanks for the link; Samsung is a great option.

These efforts are a part of China’s Belt and Road initiative, which, if successful, would make CCP goods and services part of the very fabric of the global economy. — NOS4A2

One of the Australian states signed up to Belt and Road, but later, the Federal Government passed, or intends to pass, a law giving them oversight of such agreements and the ability to void it. This is one of the reasons China is boycotting Australian wine, barley and other products - they're really trying to make an example of Australia.

By the way, this story is interesting:

a massive machine sold by a Dutch company has emerged as a key lever [against China] for policymakers — and illustrates how any country’s hopes of building a completely self-sufficient supply chain in semiconductor technology are unrealistic.

The machine is made by ASML Holding, based in Veldhoven [Holland]. Its system uses a different kind of light to define ultrasmall circuitry on chips, packing more performance into the small slices of silicon. The tool, which took decades to develop and was introduced for high-volume manufacturing in 2017, costs more than $150 million. Shipping it to customers requires 40 shipping containers, 20 trucks and three Boeing 747s.

The complex machine is widely acknowledged as necessary for making the most advanced chips, an ability with geopolitical implications. The Trump administration successfully lobbied the Dutch government to block shipments of such a machine to China in 2019, and the Biden administration has shown no signs of reversing that stance. — NY Times

But why boycott a particular country?
Why not focus on self-sufficiency?

Boycotting a particular country is like running away from danger, but not necessarily running to safety.
What we want is safety, so we should run toward safety, not merely away from danger. Self-sufficiency seems like the best practice for attaining (as much) safety (as possible).

This is one of the reasons China is boycotting Australian wine, barley and other products - they're really trying to make an example of Australia. — Wayfarer

I think this highlights the dangers of being too close to an increasingly assertive and aggressive China. People are taken in by cheap Chinese products and other benefits of economic cooperation but they forget that China is a dictatorship with many similarities to the National Socialist Germany of the 1930's

Boycotting a particular country is like running away from danger, but not necessarily running to safety. — baker

A boycott is a hostile action which leads typically to even more tense diplomatic relations between two countries when the boycotts are made on the national level. It should be noted that it's two separate things if some pressure group wants to boycott an entity or nation create legal trade barriers. Next level up is a blockade, which is basically an act of war.

People are taken in by cheap Chinese products and other benefits of economic cooperation — Apollodorus

"Taken in"?
So China is a magician or something?

People are "taken in" by their own greed. If they wouldn't be so greedy, they wouldn't settle for buying cheap low quality export stuff (from China or anywhere else).

People are "taken in" by their own greed. If they wouldn't be so greedy, they wouldn't settle for buying cheap low quality export stuff (from China or anywhere else). — baker

That's what I meant. You get taken in by something only if and to extent that you give it the power to do so.

But that still doesn't make China a benign entity.

When Trump hit China with tariffs, Netgear moved its production to other Asian countries. But for how long? Probably a safer bet is Asus for any networking equipment.

Another interesting site, especially for Americans :

https://www.americanmanufacturing.org/made-in-america/

But that still doesn't make China a benign entity. — Apollodorus

Why should any entity be benign??

I'm not saying it should be benign in this case.

On the contrary, as every political entity, including nation-states, are motivated by self-interest, we should assume that China is not benign toward the West.

So this is the real issue then? Namely, that we got taken in by our own greed, and since China has been feeding it so cheaply and so abundantly, we've come to conclude, besotted by our greed, that China means well to us -- and then we had a rude awakening upon seeing that China is not so benign, so now we feel betrayed by China and in an effort to protect our own greedy egos, we blame China instead of ourselves? Yes, this makes sense.

:grin: Well, life and human psychology can be complex at times. There isn't much we can do about it.

We exported Marxism to Russia and the Russians exported it to China.

Russian Marxism failed and the Russians had to revert to capitalism.

China learned the lesson from Russia and introduced state capitalism controlled by the Marxist leadership and built on Western cash and technology.

Now China is rising and the West declining.

What lessons will the West learn and when? This is the question!

, I want to boycott China because of Hong Kong and the Uighurs, and I've been working towards that for quite some time now. Some things I've noticed. — Benkei

So you of course know China hasn't felt any sting from your embargo.

I see your tact as reverse charity, where instead of giving to the victims of society you withhold from the perpetrators upon society. That's moral behavior in theory, but I'm troubled with an ethic that is of good intent but no good consequence unless you accept a view that good thoughts and peaceful acts actually change the world in some indirect mystical way. I don't think that's where you're at though, but maybe, although I'm likely projecting.

With charity, I don't live under the illusion my small token will cure hunger, but I do need to know it will alleviate some amount of hunger somewhere for me to give.

I ask this because what you're doing is meaningless goodness, and you know it at a rational level, but you do it anyway. I suspect you feel good for doing it and feel some obligation to do it. Is this how atheists pray?

So you of course know China hasn't felt any sting from your embargo.

I see your tact as reverse charity, where instead of giving to the victims of society you withhold from the perpetrators upon society. That's moral behavior in theory, but I'm troubled with an ethic that is of good intent but no good consequence unless you accept a view that good thoughts and peaceful acts actually change the world in some indirect mystical way. I don't think that's where you're at though, but maybe, although I'm likely projecting.

With charity, I don't live under the illusion my small token will cure hunger, but I do need to know it will alleviate some amount of hunger somewhere for me to give.

I ask this because what you're doing is meaningless goodness, and you know it at a rational level, but you do it anyway. I suspect you feel good for doing it and feel some obligation to do it. Is this how atheists pray? — Hanover

It's called leading by example, raising awareness and having consistent morals. Spending money on Chinese goods is inconsistent with taking human rights to heart. This thread raises awareness and my actions may convince others to do likewise. I do more outside of this site.

It's called leading by example, raising awareness and having consistent morals. — Benkei

Sounds like a good enough example to me. And, who knows, maybe with a bit of luck it will someday snowball into a proper movement, put pressure on governments, etc., and then we can see some action.

How about a "China Resistance Day" to mark the birth of the movement?

BTW, I think we shouldn't forget Tibetans. They have as much human rights as the Uighurs and it might motivate more people to join.

I ask this because what you're doing is meaningless goodness, and you know it at a rational level, but you do it anyway. — Hanover

I don't think this is true. Not allowing oneself to be complicit in causing harm is a habit worth cultivating regardless of the (potentially limited) consequences of any individual action resulting from that cultivation.

It's not necessarily about avoiding the harm caused by the actions themselves. It's about avoiding the harm caused by developing a psychological means of allowing oneself to be complicit in causing harm. Once you have those defenses so firmly in place that you can see the suffering you're complicit in yet feel no compulsion to act, you have a means by which any complicity can be accepted without dissonance, and I think that's a dangerous tool to encourage a population to develop.

It's not necessarily about avoiding the harm caused by the actions themselves. It's about avoiding the harm caused by developing a psychological means of allowing oneself to be complicit in causing harm. Once you have those defenses so firmly in place that you can see the suffering you're complicit in yet feel no compulsion to act, you have a means by which any complicity can be accepted without dissonance, and I think that's a dangerous tool to encourage a population to develop. — Isaac

I agree. I've seen this phenomenon in, for example, meat eating Buddhists. Now, these peple vow not to take life, so they wouldn't kill or order the animals to be killed. Some of them wouldn't even kill a mosquito, but they have no problem with eating cows, pigs, chicken, etc. They believe they can buy meat at the supermarket, and that this way, they are in no way participating in the industry of killing animals and meat production. That since they themselves did not kill the animals, did not intend to kill the animals (or didn't intend to order them being killed), they can eat them guilt free and without fearing any kammic consequences.

Some of them wouldn't even kill a mosquito, but they have no problem with eating cows, pigs, chicken, etc. They believe they can buy meat at the supermarket, and that this way, they are in no way participating in the industry of killing animals and meat production. — baker

That's an interesting point. Apparently, according to the Dalai Lama,

Some Buddhist texts say that it is not permissible to eat any meat, but others, including the Abhidharma-Kosa, say it is permissible to eat meat on the condition that the animal was not slaughtered specifically for the person who eats it.

Is It Permissible For Buddhists To Eat Meat?

Obviously, when eating meat is unavoidable, there isn't much one can do. But I think that when your behavior affects human lives, the issue acquires a different perspective. If people and governments boycott say, Germany or South Africa for their state policies, I can see no reason why this shouldn't apply to China. It may well be the case that it isn't going to work, but from an ethical point of view, at least we try to do something to redress an unacceptable situation.

If people and governments boycott say, Germany or South Africa for their state policies, I can see no reason why this shouldn't apply to China. It may well be the case that it isn't going to work, but from an ethical point of view, at least we try to do something to redress an unacceptable situation. — Apollodorus

Following what said earlier:

By Buddhist logic, if you buy products that you know were produced in an unethical way, you are innocent of any wrongdoing so long as you didn't have any intention to cause those unethical ways or didn't directly have anything to do with those unethical ways.*

It seems that some (many?) people think this way, this is why they have no problem buying goods that they know were stolen or goods where it is clear that they are sold far under price (which means that someone isn't getting payed for their work in the process). It also explains why they don't feel responsible for pollution (because they don't drive their car or heat their house with the intention to pollute).

So if the intention mechanism is like this: "I didn't do X with the intention to get Y; thus, I am innocent of Y and needn't do anything about it", how then can people be made to take responsibility for the unintended consequences of their actions?



(*Granted, in Buddhism, there are lists of things that are specifically and directly prohibited, such as buying or accepting something for which you know was stolen.)

Correct. I think humans are very ingenious creatures that are extremely good at setting rules and then constructing mechanisms that enable them to circumvent those rules with no feeling of guilt or wrongdoing whatsoever.

To be consistent, exceptions may be allowed when we have no choice, but when we do, we have a moral (and/or religious) duty to act responsibly and make the right choices.

Be consequent and boycott Russia and Saudi-Arabia too. But then it would be cold in your house in winter (if you leave in Europe) and you wouldn`t have a car to pull your motor home for the holidays (if your dutch). Is that why people think it is easier to have opinions on Chinese affairs?

Whataboutism. The subject of the thread is clear, you can either contribute or waste everybody's time with comments like that.