I have always been a strong believer in neo-liberalism and a strong proponent that global trade will democratize a country over time as the country’s citizens will eventually clamor for more political freedom in order to expand their economic freedom. We have seen this already happen in a variety of places around the world, the latest being China.

Business people are allowed to be in the CCP in order to give them a greater say in how the state should run things and people in the cities will even protest ridiculous regulations (such as limitations on the type of dogs Beijing people can own).

The idea is that this process slowly begins to open up the country as more and more rights are demanded until some point either around the average affordability of a car (usually around $5000 GDP per capita) or when a government basing its power on improving the economy fails to continue doing so. At this point, the people clamor for a change in government that leads to some kind of democratic society.

Usually I believe that this can be supplemented with external factors where other nations, corporations, or NGOs will help push for greater liberalization by mandating certain conditions be met before investments are made. China in fact had to meet a number of factors in order to be accepted into the WTO and for the most part, it was able to meet many of those commitments.

Unfortunately, this often implies that these corporations or NGOs have a larger amount of authority or integrity of beliefs than the non-democratic nation. The International Olympic Committee has shown that it does not really stand for their own principles:

Some International Olympic Committee officials cut a deal to let China block sensitive websites despite promises of unrestricted access, a senior IOC official admitted on Wednesday.

Outrage is definitely pouring across the Internet for what the IOC has done, even making Robert Vance post some harsh words against the IOC:

[T]he International Olympic Committee (IOC) is now officially an accomplice to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and all of the Chinese government’s attempts to censor free speech and block personal freedoms in China. According to a report from Reuter’s on Wednesday, “some International Olympic Committee officials cut a deal to let China block sensitive websites despite promises of unrestricted access, a senior IOC official admitted on Wednesday.” Cut a deal? There was no deal. The IOC ‘rolled over and played dead’ just like it has been doing since it bestowed the Olympics upon Beijing 8 years ago. The IOC leadership has proved itself once again to be spineless; it might as well be just another arm of the CCP. The IOC has brought shame upon itself as well as upon the Olympic Games with the way in which it has allowed Beijing to censor free speech.

Such events makes me wonder whether external events related to trade really is a form of economic liberalization or in actuality economic stablization. If the forces of democracy and freedom do not hold firm to some kind of principles, then trade may only be a force of economic stablization rather than a push towards democracy.

Any thoughts on this is greatly appreciated.