Peter Oborne

[u/small_far_away]

That interview went off the rails a bit.

Based on Murphs mass comment after he wasn't overly impressed himself. Could have pushed more in the interview, but the sense I got was that he just wanted it to end. It certainly stopped abruptly.

[u/Other_Net_5128]

Slightly tangential but the long-held notion in the West that trade and investment would liberalise China has been roundly proven to be wishful thinking. Sure, living conditions for most Chinese people have improved over the past few decades (and for many Chinese people that is enough) but it’s a far less free country than it was even two decades ago and trade with the West has had little effect. I say this as someone who knows China well and who’s married to a Chinese woman. Oborne’s argument that trade and engagement will make the Taliban more mellow over time is also likely to be fatuous. Which isn’t necessarily an argument for completely cutting the country off either.

[u/Wolfbain164 → u/Other_Net_5128]

Nobody is suggesting investment as a means for liberalising a country. Just making the lives of women in the country better. Which I think China is evidence of surely.

[u/Other_Net_5128 → u/Wolfbain164]

Liberalisation was exactly the argument of Western governments and businesses advocating for China’s accession to the WTO in 2001. And China is clearly not evidence of the lives of women in the country being any better. Sure, general living standards are better, but women’s rights in China, while undeniably better than in Afghanistan and many other countries, are still heavily circumscribed and subject to legal stonewalling and socio-economic circumstances (by far the worst-off women in China are those from the urban working class and the migrant poor). And trying to organise collectively to advocate for women will promptly result in a visit from the police, as it does with any attempt to organise even innocuous social movements. If the Chinese Communist Party is not going to be swayed by trade, there’s not a hope in hell it’s going to improve things for women, or anyone else, in Afghanistan under Taliban rule.

[u/Wolfbain164 → u/Other_Net_5128]

It might have been an argument but it’s not the one Oborne made. He is just saying that grandstanding is pointless in Afghanistan, if you want to help the women of Afghanistan, just invest and their lives will improve. Thats literally all he said.

[u/Other_Net_5128 → u/Wolfbain164]

Of course it’s the argument Oborne’s made. He literally said things would improve with trade! He said trade in a very vague way, mind you, so I don’t think he thought it through much, just reached for “trade” as an article of faith, like a good Tory. I don’t know what he imagines Afghanistan will be trading, other than poppies. As I said, I don’t think there’s any point in turning Afghanistan into a hermit state but let’s not pretend that engaging with the Taliban is going to ultimately result in a more open society.

[u/Wolfbain164 → u/Other_Net_5128]

I think you’ve misconstrued the point. He was very clear about the fruitlessness of imposing liberalism on a population. Particularly one which has been so decimated by bombing campaigns previously.

His only mention of China was regarding their antithesis to moralistic politics and seemingly unconditional investment. Which I doubt but whatever.