> So if the strategy is have-our-cake-and-eat-it-too why does the rest of the world play along?

As opposed to what? Economic sanctions have a wonderfully consistent track record of making things worse for everyone. China is too powerful for 'destroy the country and slaughter its people in a fit of pique' to work the way it did in Libya and Syria, which is just as well because that also makes things worse for everyone. The one thing that consistently works well is to maintain a free society and demonstrate a better alternative by example. Okay, granted, we should be doing more of that.

Unique tit-for-tat regulations of Chinese companies of what is shown in practice?

"Our companies don't have freedoms X,Y,Z vs Chinese corps in china, so Chinese corps and investors will get the same special treatment in our country too".

On an ethical level, you're hurting people (e.g. Chinese workers) who had no part in the objectionable actions that prompted this. On a practical level, are there any cases in history where this has ever produced beneficial results?

But like you said, something more probably has to be done. Or else consider the case where the authoritarian model is perceived to have "won" and gets exported. That's also part of the ethical consideration.

Taking a measure such as gp's suggestion, which is at least fair and on face justifiable, may be the most just move.

And given the particularity of this case, history probably doesn't have a huge sample size. New contexts emerge, such as technological development. It's much more conceivable now than before that a small group of people could indefinitely hold power over the overwhelming majority.

China's is also hurting people with their behavior towards foreign companies in China in similar ways. Not to mention all the abuse china afflicts on it's own people with their power politics.

When someone is abusing you don't roll over, you create boundaries and walk away if they are violated.

And what is good about this practice is china has the power to stop this by treating everyone equally. Your not forcing things on china and you say you will stop when they stop.

> So if the strategy is have-our-cake-and-eat-it-too why does the rest of the world play along? Corporate greed outside the control of governmental entities?

Because having access to even a fraction of China's market is a huge boon to any company, as is having access to Chinese manufacturing. And playing along with China has made their society far more open and capitalistic, even if the ruling class occasionally attempts to assert their dominance.

China will progress at their own pace, but however they do it has to be homegrown. Simply overthrowing the ruling party like most westerners want would create chaos, the transition has to occur from within and at their own pace.

Which sounds like the "corporate profit maximizing controlled at higher-than-governmental levels" explanation.

I think the argument in recent coverage like this is that it's no longer "has made their society far more open" but "HAD made their society far more open." And then it really exposes the financially-opportunistic, rather than principal-guided-as-advertised, nature of how the West deals with different countries like Cuba vs Iran vs China vs etc.

Nothing the West does is principled, and the sooner people realise this the sooner they understand why the rest of the world reacts the way they do to the West.

From destabilising Libya and Syria, to taking in refugees, to grandstanding with Russia, nothing is done for any set of moral principles.

Libya and Syria were 2 nations that believed in Arab and African pan-nationalism, and tried to assert independence and secularism in the face of Western hegemony and Saudi-sponsored Wahhabism. Sure they were dictators and unsavoury, but they also weren't any worse than the many dictators the West has propped up and sponsored over the years.

For years many economists and business leaders decried the high salaries, strong unions and high cost of doing business in Germany, Scandinavia, France and elsewhere, so they imported a bunch of refugees under the guise of humanitarian principles, and as a result they've broken the power of unions, have unlimited cheap labour and are dismantling parts of the welfare state (look at what Macron just passed through in France).

And finally in Russia, NATO has them completely encircled, we overthrew several governments on their borders and replaced them with pro-Western ones (see "Colour Revolutions", or hell, just look at Mikheil Saakashvili's career path), and then we decry the fact that they finally took action for self-preservation (they had a perpetual lease of the naval base in Sevastopol which the pro-Western government wanted to end, despite the understanding with Ukraine at the dissolution of the USSR).

And of course there's the various covert CIA actions throughout the years which have been declassified, it'll be interesting to see in the next 40 years how current events are portrayed in the future.

Also, take a look at various developing countries, and actions by the World Bank and western NGOs. Contrast that with how China has courted those same countries. I've been to countries which were decimated and abandoned by the West, and where the only infrastructure projects even happening are funded by China. I know a few people from those countries which even went to study in Chinese universities, and whose futures are going to be linked with China. No one from that country has any illusion of the West being 'good', as they were a former colony abandoned by the West.

This is the kind of ideology over reality argument that gives academics such a bad name. You list all of these "bad" foreign policy actions without examining the context, the costs of doing nothing, or any of the "good" actions these countries have also done.

Take Libya, for example, the choice was to either do nothing, and let a dictator kill a bunch of his own people, in which case the US would have been condemned as "propping up" the guy, or help the rebels, in which case they get accused of "destabilizing the country."

If they send a bunch of people to help the rebels rebuild their country afterwards, they're now "nation building" and/or "colonizing". If they do nothing now they're ignoring the country they helped to "destabilize". If they sign a bunch of deals to bring in new goods or open new factories is "western capitalism" and "worker exploitation", but if they leave them alone, or only send aid workers then it's "paternalism" all over again.

Maybe the reality is that even the most powerful country in the world couldn't do anything to help the problems of a country with millions of people, but they still take the blame for whatever happens, even if they do nothing.

And Syria is basically this situation, plus a bunch of global powers doing their proxy war nonsense, plus a bunch of power hungry murderers using a religious ideology as a justification to do whatever they want, along with a murderous government that wants to hold power at any cost. No wonder Switzerland tries to stay out of this sort of business, other than bankrolling some of the people involved anyways.

>let a dictator kill a bunch of his own people

It turns out [1] that the claims of Libyan genocide were false. There were other choices than "do nothing" or "help the rebels". For example, a reasonable decision would have been to thoroughly, carefully and accurately investigate the genocide claims.

[1] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/29/hillary-clin...

>we overthrew several governments on their borders and replaced them with pro-Western

Dunno if you are trolling, but that's impossible. You can't just overthrow the government if people don't want it. And supporting the revolution is absolutely normal, even China does it in Myanma.

No, US NGOs, the CIA, and western governments had nothing to do with it... The Canadian government actually admitted to involvement in Maidan and providing support to "protestors".

Also, if they were wanted by a majority of the people, that's why pro-Russian governments were back in power soon after, right?

The Orange Revolution government barely lasted a couple years before imploding, and the Maidan government is going the same direction.

Even Mikheil Saakashvili can't work with Poroshenko, you'd think 2 CIA stooges would get along but apparently not.

>why pro-Russian governments were back in power soon after, right?

Like Yanukovytch, who offered eurointegration, and was thrown after breaking his promises?

He didn't break his promise, Merkel gave him the impossible scenario of having to break economic ties with Russia, which accounts for 30% of Ukraine's trade, in return for integration and no firm guarantees of any economic boost.

How's Poroshenko doing these days anyhow?

He's exaggerating for effect. Providing military, political and financial support to a coup is in the same general area.