One of the most hotly debated questions of the late 1990s has been the issue of whether or not the United States should continue to pursue trade with China. On the one hand, there are those who have argued that China's record on human rights, coupled with its former military adventurism in Asia and the Pacific Rim, should eliminate China as a trading partner until such time as she restructures her policy in these areas. On the other hand, however, are ranged those advocates of trade who strongly believe that China must be included in any movement toward globalization if such an effort is to be successful. This brief essay will consider the question of whether or not "doing business" with China should or should not be undertaken; it will argue that China represents far too valuable a market to ignore, and that the most opportune approach to ameliorating human rights and other violations in China is through the establishment of a new level of contact between democratic nations and China herself.
Those who argue against doing business with China, or allowing China's current designation as a "most favored nation" to be renewed, do so from the position of moral as well as political imperatives. "Most favored nation" status, as accorded by the United States to its trade partners, is a favorable designation of a foreign country as deserving (or in need of) specific trade concessions and assistance. It has been positioned as a means of not only assisting developing nations in achieving economic growth and prosperity, but also as a way of introducing these countries to the ideals, practices and principles of the free market and democracy. Those who believe that China's record on human rights abuses and violations are antithetical to the fundamental principles of democracy argue that we simply should not provide assistance of any kind to a country that refuses to correct its behavior and to respond to the calls for justice and an end ...