U.S. Government Strikes Back Against Chinese Investment(foreignpolicy.com)
foreignpolicy.com
U.S. Government Strikes Back Against Chinese Investment
http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/06/washington-strikes-back-against-chinese-investment/
64 comments
This is sensible. China has played the West, by using the unmaterialized promise of access to its markets to motivate technology transfer to it for its own strategic advantage. It's never going to let a Western company provide the technology to power its critical systems, so there's no reason the US should allow a Chinese one to do the same.
In many respects China has had a hands off approach by the world. They have high tariffs and other laws that prevent Western products and services competing in China. I'm no fan of trade wars, or a fan of Trump, but raising the tariffs on China for steel imports is nothing China isn't already doing.
:edit: Steel was just an example product of many.
This is extremely ironic after decades of pushing the international financial institutions like the WTO and the IMF to "open other countries for investment".
It's interesting that the US has advocated free trade whilst also being one of the biggest advocates of sanctions for countries with administrations that are not so sympathetic to its plans for them.
Perhaps what the USA wants is not really free trade but "free trade": new markets to sell labour-derived goods and services to and resource suppliers with very low wages, low standards of services and low food prices in order to maintain its (slipping) financially dominant position in the world.
Viewed from this angle the move makes sense and remains consistent with long-term policy goals. The stance of the current presidential administration is merely convenient. Whether it works in the long term remains to be seen.
I'm a long-term critic of the US administration's trade and foreign policy and do not gladly suffer any who are unquestioningly sympathetic with it. So I have a hard time admitting this, but the consequences of the US' global trade empire falling are unimaginable to me: I see more ways it could end up in a significantly worse global situation than a marginally better one.
Perhaps what the USA wants is not really free trade but "free trade": new markets to sell labour-derived goods and services to and resource suppliers with very low wages, low standards of services and low food prices in order to maintain its (slipping) financially dominant position in the world.
Viewed from this angle the move makes sense and remains consistent with long-term policy goals. The stance of the current presidential administration is merely convenient. Whether it works in the long term remains to be seen.
I'm a long-term critic of the US administration's trade and foreign policy and do not gladly suffer any who are unquestioningly sympathetic with it. So I have a hard time admitting this, but the consequences of the US' global trade empire falling are unimaginable to me: I see more ways it could end up in a significantly worse global situation than a marginally better one.
> Perhaps what the USA wants is not really free trade but "free trade": new markets to sell labour-derived goods and services to and resource suppliers with very low wages, low standards of services and low food prices in order to maintain its (slipping) financially dominant position in the world.
This is a commonly touted criticism for the US by foreigners. I grew up basically my entire life hearing this argument. (I'm argentinian).
But I think it fails to grasp the political and economical reality. If the US restricts importations, it harms itself as well as it harms the would-be exporter. The idea that the US gains economic advantage by telling other countries to be open and remaining closed is just false.
Its like a business man telling other business men that paying good wages is the way to retain employees and then he pays below market: he harms himself with the hypocrisy.
Secondly, I am convinced that the natural state of human beings is to be mercantilist and protectionist, which means open trade is always a political uphill battle. The restrictions the US has on imports has been criticized by its liberal economists. But politicians are not elected to make good policy, they are elected to make popular policy.
This is a commonly touted criticism for the US by foreigners. I grew up basically my entire life hearing this argument. (I'm argentinian).
But I think it fails to grasp the political and economical reality. If the US restricts importations, it harms itself as well as it harms the would-be exporter. The idea that the US gains economic advantage by telling other countries to be open and remaining closed is just false.
Its like a business man telling other business men that paying good wages is the way to retain employees and then he pays below market: he harms himself with the hypocrisy.
Secondly, I am convinced that the natural state of human beings is to be mercantilist and protectionist, which means open trade is always a political uphill battle. The restrictions the US has on imports has been criticized by its liberal economists. But politicians are not elected to make good policy, they are elected to make popular policy.
"...The idea that the US gains economic advantage by telling other countries to be open and remaining closed is just false...."
Well, we do gain economic advantage when nations remain open, because the US is only open in theory. That said, this "only open in theory" thing affects us, the citizens of the US, just as much as it affects other nations.
For instance, in THEORY if we in the US don't like the fact that Facebook and Twitter have the power to shape what we see and hear, we're free to form startups that offer competing social networks. As a pragmatic matter though, we really aren't. Such startups are almost guaranteed to fail in the US.
On an international scale we can see this same effect in action by comparing the vibrancy of the Chinese internet startup market, against that of other, more open, nations. The vast majority of users in nations with more open markets use Facebook, Twitter, and other mostly US properties. Don't misunderstand me, the citizens of those nations can attempt to form internet startups if they wish, but the reality is that in the face of the giant, well funded, US competitors also operating in their nations, I, personally, wouldn't be sanguine about their prospects. The Chinese cleverly avoided that fate by effectively closing their market.
Well, we do gain economic advantage when nations remain open, because the US is only open in theory. That said, this "only open in theory" thing affects us, the citizens of the US, just as much as it affects other nations.
For instance, in THEORY if we in the US don't like the fact that Facebook and Twitter have the power to shape what we see and hear, we're free to form startups that offer competing social networks. As a pragmatic matter though, we really aren't. Such startups are almost guaranteed to fail in the US.
On an international scale we can see this same effect in action by comparing the vibrancy of the Chinese internet startup market, against that of other, more open, nations. The vast majority of users in nations with more open markets use Facebook, Twitter, and other mostly US properties. Don't misunderstand me, the citizens of those nations can attempt to form internet startups if they wish, but the reality is that in the face of the giant, well funded, US competitors also operating in their nations, I, personally, wouldn't be sanguine about their prospects. The Chinese cleverly avoided that fate by effectively closing their market.
The chinese people are much poorer for not having as much foreign companies inside. They pay extra taxes for the subsidies and quality of service by having less options.
Yes, its a huge loss for FAANG that they cant compete in china, but its also a loss for chinese people. It's just not a loss for chinese politicians, that can tout that thanks to them they created massive companies.
You can run indefinitely on a bad platform while it gives your reasonable returns. We'll see what happens when china gets its own big capitalist crisis.
Yes, its a huge loss for FAANG that they cant compete in china, but its also a loss for chinese people. It's just not a loss for chinese politicians, that can tout that thanks to them they created massive companies.
You can run indefinitely on a bad platform while it gives your reasonable returns. We'll see what happens when china gets its own big capitalist crisis.
> But I think it fails to grasp the political and economical reality. If the US restricts importations, it harms itself as well as it harms the would-be exporter.
It's quite ironic that this is the US we're talking about and that the US gained so much from protectionism. Abraham Lincoln remarked, “Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on earth.” The US was born, after its independence, in protectionism. Through protectionism, the US was able to establish a very impressive manufacturing base in almost every sector of the economy.
The US can drop all tariffs on imports to zero if it wants. Have you considered why it doesn't? If free imports really benefited the US in the way you're claiming they do, why would the US so aggressively seek trade deals with other nations?
The only reason to engage in trade deals is to be able to gain regulatory influence of other countries and set mutual tariffs. It is in the US interest to make these tariffs lower for things they are net exporters of and higher for things they are net importers of (because if you're manufacturing, the raw materials generally cost less than the cost of the imported raw materials and so a larger tariff on a smaller value is better than a larger tariff on the larger value)
Huge multilateral trade deals, the kind the US has been pushing, rely on the fact that they are the biggest single party and that the other signatories have a diversity of exports and imports. This is what makes Trump's bilateral approach slightly amusing: a bilateral trade deal with America First stamped on it seems like it would be a harder sell than the multilateral trade deal negotiated by the US as the largest single entity.
It makes it easier to sell to the people in those countries that their politicians have signed away their power to choose a government that has the power to introduce nice things like an efficient (i.e. socialized) healthcare system . Because the trade agreement will explicitly forbid this in order to open up the healthcare market to all the signatories.
> The idea that the US gains economic advantage by telling other countries to be open and remaining closed is just false. Its like a business man telling other business men that paying good wages is the way to retain employees and then he pays below market: he harms himself with the hypocrisy.
That's a poor analogy and as hard as I try I really can't see the mapping. In this analogy the businessmen are countries. The workers are what, the citizens? The factories? That makes no sense. Each party wants their factories to make money, of course. Are the wages taxes? Because the state taxes people. Reflecting the analogy back, is the US saying "cut taxes, cut the services for workers" whilst hypocritically turning into a social democracy?
But I like the businessmen analogy. We can say that one represents an entirely fictional Fortune 100 company (I'm sure none would behave this way) and another a tiny little manufacturer that is on the brink of going under. The Fortune 100 company uses its leverage to suggest it will give the smaller manufacturer a huge order subject to it giving it a free sample run or such of a bespoke part. The smaller manufacturer would never entertain such terms for any other customer in ordinary circumstances, but this contract would save it. So it bites, takes a hit and gets accelerated under. Then the Fortune 100 company buys it at a knock-down price when it's no longer a going concern.
The US wants imports, but not of things that directly compete with US manufacturing. Things have gone a little wrong, because self-interest has led to the moving of production to the plundered world and has led to the perception amongst some people that the main thing the US has been exporting is jobs.
It's quite ironic that this is the US we're talking about and that the US gained so much from protectionism. Abraham Lincoln remarked, “Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on earth.” The US was born, after its independence, in protectionism. Through protectionism, the US was able to establish a very impressive manufacturing base in almost every sector of the economy.
The US can drop all tariffs on imports to zero if it wants. Have you considered why it doesn't? If free imports really benefited the US in the way you're claiming they do, why would the US so aggressively seek trade deals with other nations?
The only reason to engage in trade deals is to be able to gain regulatory influence of other countries and set mutual tariffs. It is in the US interest to make these tariffs lower for things they are net exporters of and higher for things they are net importers of (because if you're manufacturing, the raw materials generally cost less than the cost of the imported raw materials and so a larger tariff on a smaller value is better than a larger tariff on the larger value)
Huge multilateral trade deals, the kind the US has been pushing, rely on the fact that they are the biggest single party and that the other signatories have a diversity of exports and imports. This is what makes Trump's bilateral approach slightly amusing: a bilateral trade deal with America First stamped on it seems like it would be a harder sell than the multilateral trade deal negotiated by the US as the largest single entity.
It makes it easier to sell to the people in those countries that their politicians have signed away their power to choose a government that has the power to introduce nice things like an efficient (i.e. socialized) healthcare system . Because the trade agreement will explicitly forbid this in order to open up the healthcare market to all the signatories.
> The idea that the US gains economic advantage by telling other countries to be open and remaining closed is just false. Its like a business man telling other business men that paying good wages is the way to retain employees and then he pays below market: he harms himself with the hypocrisy.
That's a poor analogy and as hard as I try I really can't see the mapping. In this analogy the businessmen are countries. The workers are what, the citizens? The factories? That makes no sense. Each party wants their factories to make money, of course. Are the wages taxes? Because the state taxes people. Reflecting the analogy back, is the US saying "cut taxes, cut the services for workers" whilst hypocritically turning into a social democracy?
But I like the businessmen analogy. We can say that one represents an entirely fictional Fortune 100 company (I'm sure none would behave this way) and another a tiny little manufacturer that is on the brink of going under. The Fortune 100 company uses its leverage to suggest it will give the smaller manufacturer a huge order subject to it giving it a free sample run or such of a bespoke part. The smaller manufacturer would never entertain such terms for any other customer in ordinary circumstances, but this contract would save it. So it bites, takes a hit and gets accelerated under. Then the Fortune 100 company buys it at a knock-down price when it's no longer a going concern.
The US wants imports, but not of things that directly compete with US manufacturing. Things have gone a little wrong, because self-interest has led to the moving of production to the plundered world and has led to the perception amongst some people that the main thing the US has been exporting is jobs.
> It's quite ironic that this is the US we're talking about and that the US gained so much from protectionism. Abraham Lincoln remarked, “Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on earth.” The US was born, after its independence, in protectionism. Through protectionism, the US was able to establish a very impressive manufacturing base in almost every area.
I contest this idea that protectionism is what spurred growth in america in the 1800's. At the time, federal spending was like 5% of gdp. It was a time of low regulations and lots of business freedom within the borders. Also take not that America was severely and artificially constrained as a colony, unable to legally build manufactures. After those restrictions were gone, the capital invested into machinery and production was going to shoot up immediately, regardless of tariffs. Also take into account the immigration the us had. The US kind of doubled its population every 20 years during the 1800's.
It grew in spite of the tariffs, not because of them.
> The US can drop all tariffs on imports to zero if it wants. Have you considered why it doesn't? If free imports really benefited the US in the way you're claiming they do, why would the US so aggressively seek trade deals with other nations?
Of course I considered it, and already mentioned it: political support. Why does the US subsidize corn? Or restrict the importation of agricultural products, or limits immigration? Votes and private interests, and generally because the public has believed the lies those private interests push, like immigrants taking away jobs. Something that is repeated even in this platform when the H1B topic comes up.
The only economical purpose of a trade deal is to improve free trade, by abridging the rules of both countries to merge the markets. There are then political reasons to do it, which relates to diplomacy or geopolitics, things that I cant speak much about.
> The only reason to engage in trade deals is to be able to gain regulatory influence of other countries and set mutual tariffs. It is in the US interest to make these tariffs lower for things they are net exporters of and higher for things they are net importers of (because if you're manufacturing, the raw materials generally cost less than the cost of the imported raw materials and so a larger tariff on a smaller value is better than a larger tariff on the larger value)
Trade deals with the purpose of protectionism, which definitely exist, show terrible results. You can see the Mercosur of south america, where Argentina and Brazil have deals that you can only import cars from one another. Result: cars cost twice as much as in the US with the labor force making less than what they make in the us. Disaster.
It would be in the interest of any country, at any point, to completely liberalize is import/exports, even if the other countries don't. If the US decided not to import argentinian lemons, argentina retaliating by not allowing the import of internet services can only be reasonable as a retaliatory measure with the intent of receding the other restriction. But without that goal, if that cannot be achieved, then there is no point in restricting the import. Let argentina eat its own lemons while watching netflix, and let americans think they won a battle while they eat worse or more expensive lemons.
But this is the part where people flare up their nationalism and lack of understanding of economics, and clamor for vengeance, or to teach a lesson. And thus,a politican gains votes by putting tariffs.
> That's a poor analogy and as hard as I try I really can't see the mapping. In this analogy the businessmen are countries. The workers are what, the citizens? The factories? That makes no sense. Each party wants their factories to make money, of course. Are the wages taxes? Because the state taxes people. Reflecting the analogy back, is the US saying "cut taxes, cut the services for workers" whilst hypocritically turning into a social democracy?
The citizens are the workers. They are being "harmed" by the employer giving them lower salaries, but naturally retaliate by less loyalty, costing the business-man as well.
> The Fortune 100 company uses its leverage to suggest it will give the smaller manufacturer a huge order subject to it giving it a free sample run or such of a bespoke part. The smaller manufacturer would never entertain such terms for any other customer in ordinary circumstances, but this contract would save it. So it bites, takes a hit and gets accelerated under. Then the Fortune 100 company buys it at a knock-down price when it's no longer a going concern.
Countries dont buy countries. And countries have great diversification, as there are 200 of them, and producers get to move their capital according to the risk and the benefit. If the us stopped importing a good only made for the us, the good will cease to exist, and capital will move to something else. There are no permanent results.
> The US wants imports, but not of things that directly compete with US manufacturing. Things have gone a little wrong, because self-interest has led to the moving of production to the plundered world and has led to the perception amongst some people that the main thing the US has been exporting is jobs.
My understanding is that the stronger import restrictions the us has is actually agricultural products. If the US prevented the tech imports from china its economy would go under in 2 days. You would be hard pressed to sell Apple shares if that happened. The US will stop producing things that other countries will do better and cheaper. A tariff can only move capital from competitive industries to non-competitive industries.
I contest this idea that protectionism is what spurred growth in america in the 1800's. At the time, federal spending was like 5% of gdp. It was a time of low regulations and lots of business freedom within the borders. Also take not that America was severely and artificially constrained as a colony, unable to legally build manufactures. After those restrictions were gone, the capital invested into machinery and production was going to shoot up immediately, regardless of tariffs. Also take into account the immigration the us had. The US kind of doubled its population every 20 years during the 1800's.
It grew in spite of the tariffs, not because of them.
> The US can drop all tariffs on imports to zero if it wants. Have you considered why it doesn't? If free imports really benefited the US in the way you're claiming they do, why would the US so aggressively seek trade deals with other nations?
Of course I considered it, and already mentioned it: political support. Why does the US subsidize corn? Or restrict the importation of agricultural products, or limits immigration? Votes and private interests, and generally because the public has believed the lies those private interests push, like immigrants taking away jobs. Something that is repeated even in this platform when the H1B topic comes up.
The only economical purpose of a trade deal is to improve free trade, by abridging the rules of both countries to merge the markets. There are then political reasons to do it, which relates to diplomacy or geopolitics, things that I cant speak much about.
> The only reason to engage in trade deals is to be able to gain regulatory influence of other countries and set mutual tariffs. It is in the US interest to make these tariffs lower for things they are net exporters of and higher for things they are net importers of (because if you're manufacturing, the raw materials generally cost less than the cost of the imported raw materials and so a larger tariff on a smaller value is better than a larger tariff on the larger value)
Trade deals with the purpose of protectionism, which definitely exist, show terrible results. You can see the Mercosur of south america, where Argentina and Brazil have deals that you can only import cars from one another. Result: cars cost twice as much as in the US with the labor force making less than what they make in the us. Disaster.
It would be in the interest of any country, at any point, to completely liberalize is import/exports, even if the other countries don't. If the US decided not to import argentinian lemons, argentina retaliating by not allowing the import of internet services can only be reasonable as a retaliatory measure with the intent of receding the other restriction. But without that goal, if that cannot be achieved, then there is no point in restricting the import. Let argentina eat its own lemons while watching netflix, and let americans think they won a battle while they eat worse or more expensive lemons.
But this is the part where people flare up their nationalism and lack of understanding of economics, and clamor for vengeance, or to teach a lesson. And thus,a politican gains votes by putting tariffs.
> That's a poor analogy and as hard as I try I really can't see the mapping. In this analogy the businessmen are countries. The workers are what, the citizens? The factories? That makes no sense. Each party wants their factories to make money, of course. Are the wages taxes? Because the state taxes people. Reflecting the analogy back, is the US saying "cut taxes, cut the services for workers" whilst hypocritically turning into a social democracy?
The citizens are the workers. They are being "harmed" by the employer giving them lower salaries, but naturally retaliate by less loyalty, costing the business-man as well.
> The Fortune 100 company uses its leverage to suggest it will give the smaller manufacturer a huge order subject to it giving it a free sample run or such of a bespoke part. The smaller manufacturer would never entertain such terms for any other customer in ordinary circumstances, but this contract would save it. So it bites, takes a hit and gets accelerated under. Then the Fortune 100 company buys it at a knock-down price when it's no longer a going concern.
Countries dont buy countries. And countries have great diversification, as there are 200 of them, and producers get to move their capital according to the risk and the benefit. If the us stopped importing a good only made for the us, the good will cease to exist, and capital will move to something else. There are no permanent results.
> The US wants imports, but not of things that directly compete with US manufacturing. Things have gone a little wrong, because self-interest has led to the moving of production to the plundered world and has led to the perception amongst some people that the main thing the US has been exporting is jobs.
My understanding is that the stronger import restrictions the us has is actually agricultural products. If the US prevented the tech imports from china its economy would go under in 2 days. You would be hard pressed to sell Apple shares if that happened. The US will stop producing things that other countries will do better and cheaper. A tariff can only move capital from competitive industries to non-competitive industries.
United States has largely been responsible for building the current world order post-WW2, based on democracy,and global trade. It's not easy being at the top.
> after decades of pushing the international financial institutions like the WTO and the IMF
The Washington Consensus promoted free trade and liberal democracy. In just the last few weeks, it has become apparent China is devolving into a garden-variety dictatorship. Trading short-term economic growth to defray a long-term threat to the global system is entirely consistent with the UN/IMF/WB/WTO missions and past activity.
The Washington Consensus promoted free trade and liberal democracy. In just the last few weeks, it has become apparent China is devolving into a garden-variety dictatorship. Trading short-term economic growth to defray a long-term threat to the global system is entirely consistent with the UN/IMF/WB/WTO missions and past activity.
This is true.
In addition, it's also ironic how when the Chinese government intervenes you see the American media decry exactly the type of behavior that the administration now wants to embrace.
It has never been about ideologies (free market), it's always been about what's beneficial for the US government. Not just in trade, but in everything. And anyone who knows anything about the past 40 years should be able to see it clearly. Instead, so many people are happy to parrot whatever the latest talking point on the media is.
In addition, it's also ironic how when the Chinese government intervenes you see the American media decry exactly the type of behavior that the administration now wants to embrace.
It has never been about ideologies (free market), it's always been about what's beneficial for the US government. Not just in trade, but in everything. And anyone who knows anything about the past 40 years should be able to see it clearly. Instead, so many people are happy to parrot whatever the latest talking point on the media is.
"...Instead, so many people are happy to parrot whatever the latest talking point on the media is..."
In fairness, propaganda is supposed to have that effect. There are people and organizations in China, and in the US, who spend DECADES studying human psychology, human behavior, etc etc etc, just to be able to properly direct human thinking at scale.
In fairness, propaganda is supposed to have that effect. There are people and organizations in China, and in the US, who spend DECADES studying human psychology, human behavior, etc etc etc, just to be able to properly direct human thinking at scale.
Key industry sectors are never up there for sales, such as semiconductor, which is widely acknowledged, by this government and Obama Administration.
Xi's China at best a competitor, at worst an enemy, it is getting clearer and clearer day after day.
Xi's China at best a competitor, at worst an enemy, it is getting clearer and clearer day after day.
The Chinese are transferring western tech through acquisitions so what would you expect other than a door shut in their face? Also, the Chinese NPC just made Xi chariman for life, China is guity of countless human right violations agains Uyghurs and Tibetans, their leadership has failed to act against North Korea, they have created tensions in the South China Sea and the list could go on and on.
I really dont like the Trump administration for various reasons, but one thing they have done right is showing firm hand against China. Especially when it comes to the artificial islands in South China sea and also the attempts to buy western technology by buying companies and institutions in US.
I hope more countries wake up to what China is trying to do. Artificial island, Rohingya-cleansing, Sri Lanka airport etc. Its just the beginning, we need to be prepared.
I hope more countries wake up to what China is trying to do. Artificial island, Rohingya-cleansing, Sri Lanka airport etc. Its just the beginning, we need to be prepared.
Umm..
I'm Australian, so I follow the South China Sea closely.
The US seems to have completely abandoned doing anything in the South China Sea.
I mean - Trump talks a lot about China, but has done nothing to slow the Chinese build up there.
Here's a recent article about how the Chinese have finished their fortifications on one of their artificial islands (which are pretty impressive!): http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/photos-reveal-c...
I'm Australian, so I follow the South China Sea closely.
The US seems to have completely abandoned doing anything in the South China Sea.
I mean - Trump talks a lot about China, but has done nothing to slow the Chinese build up there.
Here's a recent article about how the Chinese have finished their fortifications on one of their artificial islands (which are pretty impressive!): http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/photos-reveal-c...
I don’t really see what china thinks it is accomplishing there. The logistics are just too long to keep those islands supplied and functioning if any hostilities break out. They aren’t exactly unsinkable aircraft carriers either.
Those fortifications are a mixed bag in my opinion. On one hand, they help create area denial for the South China Sea. On the other hand, they are vulnerable and difficult to defend. Probably also a lower stakes target. If the Chinese shot at a foreign plane or ship, I think it would be tempting to attack one of these outposts. Easier and less inflammatory than attacking a mainland air base or port.
They are an area denial tactic during peacetime. There used to be free navigation there, now only warships go near without Chinese permission.
That's because there isn't anything that a US administration can do to slow the build up there. It's the same reason the Obama Administration didn't do anything of consequence to stop China when they began building the artificial islands.
It would require war, a near-war, or very large scale sanctions. A group of dozens of major economies would have to impose trade consequences. And even that might not deter China, given how badly they appear to want to annex that territory.
It would require war, a near-war, or very large scale sanctions. A group of dozens of major economies would have to impose trade consequences. And even that might not deter China, given how badly they appear to want to annex that territory.
Can you give us specifics? What has the Trump administration actually done with China?
In case you're not aware, China isn't even in the top 10 exporters of steel into the USA[0], so please don't say steel tariffs.
[0] https://www.trade.gov/steel/countries/pdfs/imports-us.pdf
In case you're not aware, China isn't even in the top 10 exporters of steel into the USA[0], so please don't say steel tariffs.
[0] https://www.trade.gov/steel/countries/pdfs/imports-us.pdf
How about aluminum:
https://www.wsj.com/article_email/chinese-billionaire-linked...
https://www.wsj.com/article_email/chinese-billionaire-linked...
> How about aluminum:
> https://www.wsj.com/article_email/chinese-billionaire-linked...
What about aluminum? What is your question, and how is your link related to it?
> https://www.wsj.com/article_email/chinese-billionaire-linked...
What about aluminum? What is your question, and how is your link related to it?
The artificial islands are in response to the US holding the first island chain [1]. Without a foothold in the South China Sea, China's military and economic access to the outside world is at the mercy of the US. This is the same reason you see so much Chinese interest in Burma — unbridled Indian Ocean ports [2].
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_island_chain
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_of_Pearls_(Indian_Ocean...
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_island_chain
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_of_Pearls_(Indian_Ocean...
That doesn't sound right. IIRC, the US and the rest of the world view the South China sea as international waters, while China makes that claim that it's its sovereign territory (against all international custom).
> the US holding the first island chain
Come on, the US doesn't hold Japan. They're allies.
> Without a foothold in the South China Sea
China already has a foothold in the South China Sea: it's coast, Hainan, etc.
> the US holding the first island chain
Come on, the US doesn't hold Japan. They're allies.
> Without a foothold in the South China Sea
China already has a foothold in the South China Sea: it's coast, Hainan, etc.
But there /are/ US military bases in Japan. If China fears a naval blockade anchored by Japan and the Philippines, that's enough.
Are those bases "holding" Japan for the US? Stated another way, is the US militarily occupying Japan today?
If I follow you around with a gun held to your head, is it fair to characterize you as my ally?
Do you really think that's what the US is doing to Japan today?
Yes, definitely. It might be a different situation if Japan also had military bases inside our country, or if they had any choice in the matter. Do you think Japan, Germany, or South Korea have any choice whether our military can occupy their countries? Are you aware how many countries around the world are currently occupied by us? It’s threat of violence, plainly and simply. I’d love to hear your perspective if it contrasts mine!
I think Japan, Germany and South Korea prefers to "lease" US military as they're doing now rather than having their own military as the sole defence for the country. Germany in particular has shown signs of enjoyment in such an arrangement, leaving them to focus on other issues like building their economy and commanding EU. There is a reason why Trump is demanding more commitment from other NATO countries. An analogy to computer game would be, US is defending the NATO countries (+japan og SK) while the others are focusing on 'booming'.
If one day germany, japan or south korea were to decide to have referendum to remove US troops and get majority vote, I am sure US would remove their troops. So in short: no, US is not holding a gun to them because the other countries are certainly enjoying US nuclear and military umbrella protecting their territory.
If one day germany, japan or south korea were to decide to have referendum to remove US troops and get majority vote, I am sure US would remove their troops. So in short: no, US is not holding a gun to them because the other countries are certainly enjoying US nuclear and military umbrella protecting their territory.
> Do you think Japan, Germany, or South Korea have any choice whether our military can occupy their countries?
Yes, they 100% have a choice. Why do you think otherwise? They're US allies and they benefit from the situation.
Another poster pointed out that they benefit from this arrangement by not having to spend so much on their domestic militaries to protect themselves.
Another point: in the case of South Korea and Germany, the US military helps protect those countries from the real threats of invasion. South Korea is still technically at war. For 50 years US soldiers eyed Soviet soldiers across the inner German border, and closely worked with West Germany and NATO to be prepare if those soldiers ever crossed over.
You have a very odd, binary perspective on international relations that seems to preclude win-win military cooperation.
Yes, they 100% have a choice. Why do you think otherwise? They're US allies and they benefit from the situation.
Another poster pointed out that they benefit from this arrangement by not having to spend so much on their domestic militaries to protect themselves.
Another point: in the case of South Korea and Germany, the US military helps protect those countries from the real threats of invasion. South Korea is still technically at war. For 50 years US soldiers eyed Soviet soldiers across the inner German border, and closely worked with West Germany and NATO to be prepare if those soldiers ever crossed over.
You have a very odd, binary perspective on international relations that seems to preclude win-win military cooperation.
>> "I hope more countries wake up to what China is trying to do. Artificial island, Rohingya-cleansing, Sri Lanka airport etc. Its just the beginning, we need to be prepared."
Would you please be concise and more elaborative about what you mean?
Would you please be concise and more elaborative about what you mean?
I hope you can forgive me but I feel its very demanding to write this over and over again. I think I have written about the Sri lankan airport thing before in detail. The reason I leave the keywords in my post is so people can do a google search and find the necessary information.
The effect, at least for me, is a wild goose chase trying to determine how the context of your post fits things like "Rohingya-cleansing". I can kinda see what you're saying based on some of the articles that come up but if you think this is helpful I'd have to disagree.
I agree with you. I asked him this when I noticed - "Rohingya-cleansing"
The brilliant thing about the web is you can just link to other writing, rather than just spread unsubstantiated FUD.
3stop(3)
“After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West welcomed the next big communist country into the global economic order. Western leaders believed that giving China a stake in institutions such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) would bind it into the rules-based system set up after the second world war (see Briefing). They hoped that economic integration would encourage China to evolve into a market economy and that, as they grew wealthier, its people would come to yearn for democratic freedoms, rights and the rule of law.
It was a worthy vision, which this newspaper shared, and better than shutting China out. China has grown rich beyond anybody’s imagining. Under the leadership of Hu Jintao, you could still picture the bet paying off. When Mr Xi took power five years ago China was rife with speculation that he would move towards constitutional rule. Today the illusion has been shattered. In reality, Mr Xi has steered politics and economics towards repression, state control and confrontation.
...
The West lost its bet.”
https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21737517-it-bet-china...
It was a worthy vision, which this newspaper shared, and better than shutting China out. China has grown rich beyond anybody’s imagining. Under the leadership of Hu Jintao, you could still picture the bet paying off. When Mr Xi took power five years ago China was rife with speculation that he would move towards constitutional rule. Today the illusion has been shattered. In reality, Mr Xi has steered politics and economics towards repression, state control and confrontation.
...
The West lost its bet.”
https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21737517-it-bet-china...
justicezyx(2)