>Of course I see China's policies as anti-union to the extreme...
>I don't see China as the 'most abnormal
>nation on earth,' as Rich Trumka declared during the PNTR battle.
I do, at least among large nations. None of the largest nations on earth routinely break every union that forms and jails every union leader who stands up in defiance. There are a fewer smaller countries like Columbia where the govenment does not undertake direct antiunion attacks, but pro-government militias are targetting union leaders for death. But the union leaders at least retain the ability to advocate their cause and publicize those killings without being thrown in jail by the government itself.
China is unique in the total repression of the unions and the absolute repression of speech to advocate for unionism in the political sphere.
>One can argue that China has legitimate national interests and holds
>legitimate gripes against the USA without siding with Chinese government
>policies
Which begs the question-- the USA wanted PNTR, so this was not about US versus China interests, but about US and Chinese capitalist elites cooperating in trade policies at the expense of workers globally.
Even the term "legitimate national interests" is de facto a defense of the government's labor policies which were challenged by those opposing PNTR. Sure, you may prefer a better labor policy in China, but you seem to defend it politically as a ncessary evil to defend China's "legitimate national interests." Yet the irony is that, while you try to play this as a "US versus China" issue, the US government and the Chinese government were not opposed on PNTR. They were in agreement.
I'm sorry-- I don't buy "national interests", just the interests of workers and individuals fighting the collaboration of various elites from China to the US in suppressing them. And in the case of PNTR, those elite interests were on the same side in supporting PNTR, while the AFL-CIO was opposing both.
-- Nathan Newman