
China Forces Norway to Adhere to ‘One China’ Policy - whatyoucantsay
https://sentinel.tw/norway-one-china-policy/
======
whatyoucantsay
There are two notable points in this piece:

1) China suspended normal diplomatic relations with Norway, tossed out a free
trade agreement, largely shut down fishing imports from the country and made
it far more difficult for Norwegians to get visas to travel study or work in
China. All of this was because of an activist being awarded a Nobel Peace
Prize, which is process controlled a foundation, not directly by the Norwegian
government.

2) It took six years for Norway to get normal relations back. After many
failed attempts, what they finally had to do was jointly acknowledge the One
China Principle _and China 's core interests and territorial integrity_.
Beyond Taiwan, this clearly includes the China’s "nine dash line" claims in
South China Sea, which was ruled illegal by the Permanent Court of Arbitration
in The Hague last summer.

There's also various content about interfering with Dalai Lama visits and
other topics that are pretty familiar to most Europeans.

Update: correction about the Nobel Peace prize thanks to dagw's feedback.

~~~
dagw
_Nobel Peace Prize, which is process controlled a private family, not by the
Norwegian government._

Not entirely true. First of all the Nobel Foundation is completely independent
of the Nobel family and has been since the start. Secondly while the Committee
that decides who gets the peace prize is technically independent of the
Norwegian government, it is appointed by the Norwegian government and many of
its members have always been former Norwegian politicians (a former prime
mister of Norway, for example, sat on the committee that gave the prize to Liu
Xiaobo).

~~~
whatyoucantsay
Thanks. I hadn't realized it was such a thin technicality. I just updated the
comment.

------
Geekette
Wow, shocking to read of such deep capitulation from a country like Norway,
which positions itself as egalitarian and goes the extra mile in various areas
such as excluding certain companies from investment by its global sovereign
fund on ethical grounds[1].

This was also chilling to read: _" And when the Dalai Lama was invited to
Norway in 2014 by the Norwegian Nobel Committee to celebrate his receiving the
Nobel Peace Prize 25 years earlier, conservative Prime Minister Erna Solberg
refused to meet with him, as did every single member of Solberg’s government.
Due to warnings from China, His Holiness was not even allowed in to the
Norwegian Parliament’s formal reception room, despite the room being empty
during the time of his visit."_

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway#Excluded_companies)

~~~
imron
> Wow, shocking to read of such deep capitulation from a country like Norway

China forces every country that it has normalised relations with to adhere to
the 'One China' policy. Does your country have a Chinese embassy in it? Guess
what, your country adheres to the 'One China' policy too.

~~~
Geekette
Pretty sure other countries' recognition of (which does not necessarily equate
to acceptance or support of) China's position on this do not extend to the
level of sovereign embarrassment and capitulation outlined in the post.

~~~
jonnathanson
As barkingcat suggests, pretty much every country on the planet that has
normalized diplomatic relations with China formally accepts the One China
policy. This is part of China's chess strategy for forcing the world to accept
its ownership of Taiwan.

I will go out on a limb for a second and suggest that the day will come soon
enough when the United States formally bends the knee on this issue as well.
We are headed in that direction much faster than anyone anticipated.

The 'free world' has chosen to worship the Almighty Dollar as its lord and
sovereign. China is where most of your dollars come from now. Ergo, China has
the mandate of market-capitalist heaven, and you work for China now.

~~~
barkingcat
Yup the US is not far behind.

As far as "sovereign embarrassment," there is no such thing. If you want
Chinese trade and embassy relations, you put out whatever news releases, go on
television, press conferences, and at the UN General Assembly you stand up and
proclaim exactly what Norway has said. It's an "embarrassment" in the poster's
mind, but pretty much every country has done it. Then you go behind China's
back and buy Taiwanese stuff and talk to the President of Taiwan in
backchannels because everyone needs cpu's, microchips, and cell phones. The
level of hypocrisy is pretty high in global politics.

I do not agree with this, but it is the state of the world.

------
klunger
I live in Norway. There has been pressure for some time on the government to
do this because of the salmon exports. Fishing is not as big as oil, but it is
still an important part of the economy here. Losing China as a customer meant
bad news for a lot of folks in the fishing industry here. Also, since Norway
is trying (unsuccessfully so far, but still they are trying) to lessen
dependence on oil, this loss mattered even more than you might think at first
glance.

Not saying that caving to normalize relations was "right," but it definitely
had quite a bit of domestic support here.

~~~
MagnumOpus
> Fishing is not as big as oil, but it is still an important part of the
> economy

Meh. It employs 7k-10k people and contributes 0.7% of the economy. That is
chickenfeed, and a particularly dumb thing to give up their principles over -
particularly because processed fish are a fungible commodity and could be sold
for the same price outside of China.

~~~
HillaryBriss
> processed fish are a fungible commodity and could be sold for the same price
> outside of China

yes. right. that aspect of this story puzzles me. i thought that was how
globalism worked.

i mean, can't Norway just sell the fish to, say, Canada, which could then sell
_its_ farmed salmon to China, etc?

i can't quite see what difference this will make. is Norway geographically
closer to China than other salmon producing nations? how do they explain this?

~~~
pmontra
Those triangulations are possible only if the destination country is willing
to pay a premium for the banned goods.

Norwegian salmon would cost more in China because the Canadians are going to
put some markup on it (and fairly, because they'll have to do some work on
their own.) Or keep the same price for the consumer and gain less. In both
cases Norway is going to lose money compared to normal commercial
relationships.

~~~
HillaryBriss
Right. Sorry, I didn't explain my thoughts well.

This is more what I had in mind: Instead of selling its salmon to China,
Norway sells all of its salmon to the US, France and Germany. So now US,
French and German consumers buy _that much less_ salmon from other salmon
farming countries like Chile and Canada. And Chile and Canada are free to sell
_their_ farm-raised salmon to China.

~~~
pmontra
In principle you are right. In practice the supply chains must get some
incentive to switch to new suppliers. Perfect cooperation would suffice but
usually it's price cuts.

------
captainmuon
International "meta"-law is so ridiculous. I mean the customary rules
concerning recognition of states, embassies, passports [1], etc..

If I was ruler of a small country, I would say "of course we won't recognize
Taiwan. We will _foobar_ them. They don't get an embassy, but they get a
_blah_." (which de facto will be exactly the same thing)

[1] Concerning passports, no matter how radically different states are, the
US, the Soviet Union, North Korea, the Vatican, one thing they can all agree
on is that people have a "nationality" and must carry a "passport" when going
over borders, the passport has a certain size and spaces for "visas", etc.. It
really makes me consider how "radical" a state is if it partakes in this
global system. Especially interesting, if you remember that a few centuries
ago, none of this existed at all. In history lessions in school, I wondered
how Lenin could travel through all of europe unhampered when he was fleeing
from the tsarists. Well, there were only little borders or passports as we
know them now around.

~~~
vinceguidry
> If I was ruler of a small country, I would say "of course we won't recognize
> Taiwan. We will foobar them. They don't get an embassy, but they get a
> blah." (which de facto will be exactly the same thing)

That might not be a smart move. Small nations get a lot out of banding
together and acting as a bloc. If you foobar Taiwan, it might freeze you out
of diplomatic channels that are more important to you than wanking off China.

Plus, you don't have to kowtow to China when you have the US around. If you're
_really_ lucky, you'll rate a US military base and watch your economy take
off. Sadly, if the Trump-ites get their wish, the US won't be much of an
alternative for much longer.

~~~
mikeash
Taiwan is quite used to countries working around China like this. Only 20
countries have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, none of them very
influential.

~~~
dionian
And those that do use the official name of Taiwan's gov't, the Republic of
China... which makes PRC look bad since they have a "China" across the strait
with democracy and freedom.

------
avar
An interesting detail left out of the article is that Norway's neighbor
Iceland ended up signing a free-trade agreement with China in 2013, both
Norway and Iceland had negotiations underway in 2010 when China broke ties
with Norway.

Norway and Iceland are both EEA members, effectively with one foot in the EU,
Iceland was the first European country to sign such an agreement with China.

Norway and Iceland having free-trade with China while having deep access to
the European single market leaves EU expansion in an odd situation. Neither
country could become a full EU member without hurting trade with China, or
alternatively the EU would have to make a similar FTA with China beforehand.

I've wondered what the realpolitik of the situation is. Is China's main
interest in these deals to drive a wedge into further EU integration? Are they
trying to create a situation where Norway and Iceland joining the EU would be
contingent on the EU accepting a FTA with China?

~~~
vidarh
Norway at least have no current interest in EU membership. Support for EU
membership has for a long time been so low (last year polls indicated 71% no,
compared to an almost even result in the '94 referendum) that there's no
prospect of another EU referendum anytime soon.

~~~
avar
Norway and Iceland don't need to become full EU members for a China FTA
creating conflicts between them and the EU. There's already overlap between
products covered under Iceland's FTA with China and its FTA with the EU/EEA,
but in practice it doesn't matter much because any gains from lower import
duties are negated by expensive shipping from Iceland.

If Norway signs a similar agreement an EEA country with open land borders with
the EU will have a FTA with China. At that point the EU would either need to
never liberalize certain trade with the EEA least Norway become a shipping and
distribution hub for Chinese goods into the EU, or accept that to get closer
integration with Norway and the other EEA members.

There has been increasing liberalization of trade between the EU and EEA
members, just last month the EU and Iceland agreed to drop almost all import
duties on agricultural products[1].

In addition to all of that, with global warming gearing up the Northeast
Passage[2] might become a viable shipping route between China and Europe, at
that point shipping from China to Norway will be the shortest shipping route
between China and Europe by far. Sailing from China to Europe via the NEP to
Norway cuts time at sea and fuel consumption by more than half compared to
going via the Suez Canal.

1\. [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-
room/20170911IPR...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-
room/20170911IPR83504/eu-to-boost-trade-with-iceland)

2\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Passage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Passage)

~~~
Reason077
_" If Norway signs a similar agreement an EEA country with open land borders
with the EU will have a FTA with China. ... Norway become a shipping and
distribution hub for Chinese goods into the EU"_

No, it doesn't work like that. Norway is not a member of the European customs
union. Goods moving between Norway and the EU are subject to customs checks
and, potentially, tariffs. You can't just trans-ship Chinese goods landed in
Norway onward into the EU without customs declarations, inspections, and all
that.

Of course, private citizens can travel pretty much freely across the EU-Norway
border. Goods can move freely in small, personal-use quantities (Norwegians
certainly like to shop across the border at cheaper Swedish supermarkets,
etc). But as soon as you start shipping stuff in commercial volumes, it is
subject to customs just like any other Chinese goods coming in to the EU would
be.

~~~
avar
I understand that Norway doesn't have duty-free import of goods into the EU.
What I'm referring to is that the existing tolls and import duties weren't
negotiated with the assumption that Norway has tariff-free access to the
biggest producer of cheap goods in the world.

I elaborated a bit on this in a sibling comment[1], but let's say for example
that the import duties on electric drills from China into the EU are set at
30%, but the same duty for Norway is 10%.

After signing a FTA with China Norway can simply import the drills at 0%, then
re-export them to Germany at a rate of 10%.

Even if they can't simply re-export finished products a Norwegian company
could buy cheap Chinese parts for making drills, then finish constructing them
domestically and export them to the EU.

Even if they don't directly re-export anything from China Norwegian industry
would be more competitive than its neighbors, e.g. a Norwegian paper mill
might buy cheap acids for industrial from China that their neighbors in Sweden
don't have access to. This would make Norwegian paper cheaper than Swedish
paper, and Sweden would pressure the EU to adjust its import duties
accordingly.

Thus the EU will start having to either treat Norway and Iceland more like
China in terms of tariffs and import duties, or to treat China more like
Norway and Iceland.

1\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15409391](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15409391)

~~~
Reason077
Norway certainly can't import Chinese drills at 0% and then re-export them to
Germany under the Norwegian tariff. Those drills are still of Chinese origin,
and re-labeling them otherwise would be illegal. Only Norwegian drills can
benefit from Norway's 10% tariff.

As for goods of mixed origin (manufactured in Norway but benefiting from
Chinese inputs/components), that is indeed where things get complicated. And
that's one of the reasons why trade agreements typically run many thousands of
pages and take years to negotiate! But the WTO has pretty comprehensive "Rules
of origin" to use as a starting point.

~~~
avar
Yes legally it can't, but enforcing this on an open border with a direct road
connection to the rest of the EU is going to be quite interesting.

Right now this situation exists in theory, but in practice pretty much nobody
in the EU has any cause to try to import something via Norway, since its trade
deals are quite similar to what the EU itself has.

But the EU has huge tariffs on some Chinese products, including slapping China
with 30-70% tariffs on basic metal alloys in some cases[1][2].

The difference can be so large that it becomes beneficial for you as a private
EU citizen to drive up to Norway yourself to fetch e.g. basic alloys at lower
prices.

Nothing remotely like this situation exists within the land borders of
Schengen today. There's the agreement with Iceland, but as it's an island
enforcement is much easier.

1\. [https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/09/reuters-america-
update-2-eu-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/09/reuters-america-update-2-eu-
sets-steel-import-duties-to-counter-chinese-subsidies.html)

2\. [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/07/european-
un...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/07/european-union-import-
duties-chinese-steel-port-talbot-tata)

------
oh-kumudo
Which in fact, is what most countries in the world signed up for. Also, it is
a prerequisite for any country to even establish ANY formal diplomatic
relationship with China[1]. It is almost certain Norway government has
acknowledged this way back then through some bilateral treaty, and this time
it is simply a reiteration.

TL;DR:this is no news

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-
China_policy#Diplomatic_re...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-
China_policy#Diplomatic_relations)

~~~
dak1
The US has never recognized the One China policy or China's claim over Taiwan.
Instead, the US merely acknowledges China's position.

Of course, as a superpower, you have a little bit more negotiating leverage.

However, China's only been successful at bullying countries into recognizing
some of its more absurd positions because it has negotiated on bilateral
bases, where in almost every case China holds significantly more relative
economic clout.

If the US, the EU, the UK, Canada, Japan, and Australia collectively took a
position and agreed to provide support for any country that was individually
attacked or sanctioned by China for its position, then you'd probably see a
much more restrained policy response from China (although their rhetoric would
likely be quite loud).

We've known for years that China's foreign policy has largely consisted of
"salami slicing" — pressing hard for small concessions that cumulatively
result in dramatic changes to international norms, and in the past states
engaging in such behavior have been met with a strong and united international
response, but for numerous reasons, the reaction to China still remains quite
muted.

~~~
dis-sys
> If the US, the EU, the UK, Canada, Japan, and Australia collectively took a
> position and agreed to provide support for any country that was individually
> attacked or sanctioned by China for its position, then you'd probably see a
> much more restrained policy response from China (although their rhetoric
> would likely be quite loud).

cold war version 2? nice try.

~~~
chibg10
I'm not sure how a Cold War 2 wouldn't be preferable to a CCP-centric world.

------
sitepodmatt
Looks like a PHP/mySQL non-static site (I wonder if some popular blogging
platform?) crumbling under the load. Luckily someone pressed the turbo charge
button (x-turbo-charged-by: LiteSpeed <\-- seriously?) on the cpanel box so it
can now accommodate a page view a second!

~~~
kuschku
Even WordPress pages end up faater than much of what is nowadays produced.

Gogs doesn't do any caching at all, every request opens a new database
connection. After 30 accesses per second gogs dies.

WordPress can cache SQL queries with memcached, and can scale to tenthousands
of accesses per second with that.

------
alansammarone
[https://web.archive.org/web/20170110193419/https://sentinel....](https://web.archive.org/web/20170110193419/https://sentinel.tw/norway-
one-china-policy/)

------
interfixus
> _China Forces Norway to Adhere to ‘One China’ Policy_

China does no such thing. Norway sells out. For money.

But at least they held out for six years. A better score than most of the rest
of us.

------
rdlecler1
The continued growth of China (and India) can strengthen organizations like
the EU and give rise to other blocs of small countries. Collective bargaining
power is the only way to have leverage with a country that’s 20-60 Times
larger. It’s not unlike the unionization of labor in response to the weak
bargaining position of the individual worker and I expect a similar pattern to
repeat including union busting and bribery and a populist response. All very
dangerous. If China pushes too hard, then the pendulum will swing hard in the
other direction and China will be facing strong union fronts, populist
movements that stubbornly demand painful concessions and resultant trade wars.
We’ve seen this pattern before and it gets worse before it gets better.

------
avar
Since the site is melting under the HN load here's the full linked article:

HEADLINE: Norway just recently established normal ties with China after a six-
year break. But in order to do so, the Norwegian government had to embrace the
Chinese development model and social system, as well as the ‘one China’
framework.

ARTICLE: Since 2010, Norway barely had any diplomatic relations with China,
due to the fact that Chinese activist Liu Xiaobo was awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize that same year. The Chinese government demanded an apology from Norway,
together with a guarantee that the prize was never to be awarded to a Chinese
activist again.

But since the five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee is an independent
institution, the Norwegian government was in no position to issue neither an
apology nor a guarantee. Nevertheless, China decided to punish Norway by
immediately shelving a free-trade agreement that was being negotiated.

Chinese officials also stopped visiting the Norwegian embassy in Beijing, and
its ambassador no longer received invitations to diplomatic events. Visas
became harder to obtain for Norwegian tourists and professionals alike, and a
range of exchanges in different fields was canceled with haste.

However, in late December last year, Norwegian Foreign Minister Børge Brende
suddenly appeared in Beijing to announce that the two countries were resuming
normal diplomatic and trade relations. Negotiations on the free-trade
agreement started again, much to the joy of the Norwegian Seafood Council,
which estimates salmon exports to China to increase twentyfold in the coming
years. The joy was shared by the tourism industry and the business sector
alike.

It was also shared, obviously, by Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg, who
acknowledged that the strained relationship what China had not only weakened
Norway’s trade but also its say in global politics, since China has been
throwing its weight around to marginalize Norwegian influence in several
international organizations.

But there is no such thing as a free lunch. When declaring the re-
establishment of ties with China, Brende also had to present a two-page joint
declaration that included passages like: “The Norwegian government reiterates
its commitment to the One China Policy, fully respects China’s sovereignty and
territorial integrity, attaches high importance to China’s core interests and
major concerns, will not support actions that undermine them, and will do its
best to avoid any future damage to the bilateral relations.”

Hence, after Tsai Ing-wen took office in Taipei, China has not only engaged in
checkbook diplomacy, as was the case when Sao Tomé & Principe switched
diplomatic allegiance in late December. It is also demanding leading
democracies to embrace the “one China” policy to atone for ”mistakes” made
years ago in totally unrelated policy issues.

William Nygaard, chairman of PEN Norwegian Center, criticized the fact that
the two-page joint statement doesn’t include a single word about human rights.
John Peder Egenaes, general secretary for Amnesty International Norway, finds
this particularly strange given that human rights is a Norwegian foreign
policy priority — especially the support of human rights champions. “This
policy,” Egenaes said, “has to apply to China, as much as to any other place.”

Stein Ringen, a Norwegian political scientist and professor at Oxford
University, even branded the event as “an outright humiliation” to Norway,
accusing his country’s politicians of surrendering to China’s demands. Ringen
is particularly worried about terms like “territorial integrity” and “core
interests” in the joint declaration, which he means de facto constitutes a
“formal acceptance” from Norway not only regarding Taiwan, but also China’s
claims in South China Sea, which was ruled illegal by the Permanent Court of
Arbitration in The Hague last summer.

While in Beijing, Foreign Minister Brende said that resumption of normal
relations with China was made possible only after long-time and laborious
diplomatic efforts. Those “laborious efforts” seems to have begun almost
immediately when his Conservative Party assumed power after the 2013
elections, replacing the prior left-center coalition. Already later the same
year seven pillars from the imperial Summer Palace, brought to Norway over 100
years ago by a Norwegian cavalry officer, were returned to China.

And when the Dalai Lama was invited to Norway in 2014 by the Norwegian Nobel
Committee to celebrate his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize 25 years earlier,
conservative Prime Minister Erna Solberg refused to meet with him, as did
every single member of Solberg’s government. Due to warnings from China, His
Holiness was not even allowed in to the Norwegian Parliament’s formal
reception room, despite the room being empty during the time of his visit.

The two-page joint agreement signed by the conservative government also states
that Norway “fully respects China’s development path and social system, and
highly commends its historic and unparalleled development that has taken
place.” For good measure, the declaration further highlights that Norway is
“fully conscious of the position and concerns of the Chinese side” concerning
the Nobel Peace Prize.

Alas, just short of a formal apology, China managed to get everything it
wanted from the Norwegian government. In fact, the two-page joint statement
can arguably be seen as an apology by diplomatic language, for an independent
committee’s decision to reward a peaceful activist, who is still to this day
behind bars while his wife is enduring a strict house arrest.

As if that was not already enough, China added insult to injury by using the
Norwegian resignation for propaganda purposes. At the time of the declaration,
foreign Minister Wang Yi said that Norway understood how bilateral relations
could be improved only after “deep reflections” and “solemn consultations”
with China.

“Norway has paid its price due to its intervention in Chinese domestic
affairs,” the party mouthpiece Global Times mused, before summing up the case
with the following observation: “Norway has a population of merely 4 million,
but it tried to teach China, a country with 1.4 billion people a lesson in
2010. It was a ridiculous story.”

~~~
sewer_bird
"who is still to this day behind bars while his wife is enduring a strict
house arrest."

Liu Xiabo is since dead, actually:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/13/opinion/liu-
xiaobo.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/13/opinion/liu-xiaobo.html)

~~~
MattConfluence
The article is from January.

------
ddmma
Utopian meets dystopian

------
ausjke
The reality is, money talks, even war is sometimes caused by economic reasons,
if not all the times.

with that being said, the rising power of china, with its sheer size, it can
essentially now bend everything to its will, including US who has so much
trading deficit these years.

and, more cases like this will be down the road, people will probably have to
get used to this new ruler in a few decades, mostly not by war, but by its
economic power.

~~~
it_learnses
Unless we can all unite, and bring China back down to where it belongs.

------
nnq
How did _Liu Xiaobo_ become so important? So much happening for this guy
expressing his opinions, wtf?!

If an American or someone from most European countries would express similar
opinions wrt his own country's government... nobody would blink a fucking eye,
regardless of who gave him what prize...

(And we all know that Nobels for anything _except_ science _are_ 100%
bullshit. Heck, I'd even question the relevance of the ones for medicine...)

~~~
astebbin
In American high school I learned not just about Nathan Hale and Martin Luther
King Jr., but also about Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, and Sophie Scholl.
These figures are famous for the strength of their moral beliefs, the
brutality they endured as a result, and their perseverance despite such
adversity.

On these points, I think Liu Xiaobo is of equal merit. This would explain his
visibility in the West. If students in China aren't taught similar stories or
values, then I could understand the difficulty to relate.

~~~
teresonos
Students in China are definitely taught about "figures are famous for the
strength of their moral beliefs, the brutality they endured as a result, and
their perseverance despite such adversity."

But considering that Liu Xiaobo preached about the inferiority of the Chinese
race and how they needed to be colonized by the West for a couple hundred
years, they would most likely compare him to an Uncle Tom/Chan type of person.

------
jacknews
What's that got to do with the price of fish?

Ah...

------
z3t4
It will be interesting if the nobel committee give another Nobel Peace Prize
to China ;)

------
jcfrei
Can't read the article because the site is down. But it seems like a reminder
why countries join supranational organizations like the EU: To increase their
collective bargaining power.

------
crystaln
There's no real commitment here, just a face save for China. The diplomatic
language was clearly coerced and has no impact except satisfying Chinese
narcissism.

------
ekianjo
I dont understand the word Forcing here. Norway had a choice to continue
denying The one China policy. Putting pressure on Norway thru various means is
not forcing. Forcing would be done via a military operation leaving little
choice.

~~~
robert_foss
Applying pressure that is irresistible is the literal definition of forcing.

So yes, China was definitely forcing Norway to recognize Taiwan and Hong Kong
as a being a part of China.

~~~
andrepd
But here the pressure wasn't "irresistible"; they were not being threatened or
attacked. They would just be making less money than they do this way. I hardly
call that irresistible.

~~~
robert_foss
Financial force is force.

~~~
andai
What is it called when all it takes to convince you to do something you
consider unethical is the promise of money?

