For the third, MDS cites James Fallows' explanation on why a boycott wouldn't work anyway. And I just don't dig on Fallow's argument, which boils down to "The Chinese wouldn't like it," and "The Chinese are exceptional in that they don't like being told what to do." Fallows relies on some facile points like the following:
I am constantly amazed, and I think most Americans here [in China] feel the same, by how little overt anti-Americanism I encounter in China. (Japanese expats here might tell a different story.) But those who were here when the U.S. bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade say that the rage against Americans then was physically frightening. All at once the mood turned angrily hostile.There's really nothing exceptional about being hostile towards the superpower that blows up your embassy. People have pretty similar reactions to this kind of thing wherever you go.
But the worst argument is the one Fallows won't even bother to engage: the one about what pressure on China could mean for Darfur. You can't honestly talk about the pros and cons of a boycott while steering clear of the D-word. (Needless to say, MDS does not neglect the Sudan issue in his post.)
