I believe that if I do a little research on my own I can do a better job than Amnesty International. If I answer your question directly then we’ll never quit this.
I’m sorry, but we can’t proceed until we agree on the facts about Russia and China. Not only did the change in Russia occur because of their in ability to subdue Afghanistan, but also because of the emergence of technology that made it impossible for the government to completely control the flow of information. If you read a certain radical magazine, the back issues from the early 80s, you would discover that Russian society was nearing collapse back then. I don’t know enough about China, but I suspect that they change when their leaders pass away, and a new regime takes over–and some of those leaders felt an influx of capitalism would be a good thing. Simply living in proximity to Japan, S. Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan is more than enough argument to make folks see the prosperity that capitalism generates.
These changes did not occur because of diplomacy, and these changes were not significant enough to qualitatively change the human rights policies of the respective governments.
If we can’t agree on this then there isn’t any point in continuing the discussion. So it’s up to you to prove that Russia and China are human rights examples for the Kim’s and Mugabe’s of the world to follow, and that diplomacy was the major cause of these changes. And even if you can actually prove this, it doesn’t necessarily generalize that diplomacy is effective in every situation. Diplomacy can never work with an insane genocidal madman, they are impervious to reason.
