Engagement vs. isolationism: China’s transplant system

Throughout history when confronting significant moral or ethical issues there is frequently a battle between engagement and isolationism. No singular strategy can claim universal success, those on opposite sides are prone to criticize the other, and progress cannot be assured with either strategy, but engagement and isolationism are at opposite ends of the political spectrum when dealing with such problems. At times, different actors can play roles that enable engagement while simultaneously continuing to isolate. Armand Hammer’s role, as trusted messenger between isolationist United States and isolationist Soviet Union in the 1970s, helped lead to engagement through détente and ultimately reconciliation between the United States and the Soviet Union (1). Thus was the situation with China and their transplant system in the 1990s through the mid-2000s. China proceeded with their transplant system development in isolation and the world generally did not recognize how it was developing until the early 2000s when the ethical issues became so significant that it was impossible to ignore (2).