The foreign policy instrument of trade

[Vermilliona]

(mainly for those doing China) Do you count investment in secessionist regions as a use of trade? In the book it's listed under trade, but trade is meant to be a foreign policy instrument and this is internal... Should I just stick with the status quo the book has set?

[achre]

Well, China does definitely trade with herself, and they do use it as a form of power, especially in secessionist regions. (Trade can be a foreign policy instrument, but it doesn't have to be.) As far as the investments go though, I guess it would depend on what kind of investments they are - there has to be some exchange for it to qualify as trade. When in doubt, trust the book.
The book knows all.

[osgood]

Trade and investment are fine with regards to Taiwan :-) Not secessionist regions like Xinjiang and Tibet though

[k-dog]

Trade and investment are fine with regards to Taiwan :-) Not secessionist regions like Xinjiang and Tibet though

I thought this was only in regards to foreign policy. Or is it actually not classified as trade or investment if it is internal?

[achre]

Trade and investment are fine with regards to Taiwan :-) Not secessionist regions like Xinjiang and Tibet though

Is that because of the One China policy? Because Victoria trades with other Australian states, so I can't see why Beijing wouldn't trade with Tibet, to strengthen their economy by fostering market growth, which in turn would compel the region to participate in developing an harmonious society.

[Vermilliona]

Is that because of the One China policy? Because Victoria trades with other Australian states, so I can't see why Beijing wouldn't trade with Tibet, to strengthen their economy by fostering market growth, which in turn would compel the region to participate in developing an harmonious society.

I think China's divided into three economic zones, so I'm not sure if the trade between them works in quite the same way. Would you say that when state-owned enterprises decide to increase investment in Xinjiang that that counts as using trade? You're effectively trading with the central state if you're trading with its companies... But I think I'll just focus on trade as foreign policy anyway, three direct links is enough for territorial integrity.

[maddimarvel]

Do you guys use the Anna Louis Simpson text book?

[Vermilliona]

Do you guys use the Anna Louis Simpson text book?

Unfortunately, yes. I think it's the only one, so everyone's stuck with it :/

[catnus]

The textbook sucks. If I wasn't so lazy I'd research and make it myself.

[Vermilliona]

My favourite sections were the extensively researched arms control and disarmament and economic instability ones. 10/10, would read again.

[quynhich]

From what my teacher has told me, foreign policy is acceptable for use in Taiwan, because of the contentious nature of it's status.
Because the study design explicitly mentioned one of "the main foreign policy instruments used to try to achieve differing national interest" is Three Direct Links policy, which is exclusively in regards to Taiwan.
Therefore it's appropriate to use foreign policy interest anything with Taiwan, but not for Zinjiang or Tibet (they could still be used in instances for economic power though).

[maddimarvel]

Unfortunately, yes. I think it's the only one, so everyone's stuck with it :/

It's so bad. Makes me cringe. Hope there's going to be a new one next year.