What's the alternative that he proposes? Cave on every issue because we don't want to offend them? This point is a bit odd: A foreign policy of serious people at a time of crisis will recognize that the current Chinese regime is the best we can expect from that country. The Chinese revitalization of Asian capitalism remains the most important positive event in the world in the last 30 years. Not only did it release a billion people from penury and oppression but it transformed China from a communist enemy of the U.S. into a now indispensable capitalist partner. Is it possible that these changes occurred because we did push and prod them along? I don't think anyone expects China to acquiesce to everything we ask. But if we push for A, B, and C and get B, that's better than pushing for nothing and getting nothing out of fear of offending someone.
If the Chinese want to spite their face by cutting off their nose and returning to a planned economy to "get back" at the USA, fine. They didn't switch over in the first place to please the USA, they did so from perceived benefit even though the implication of the article is otherwise. Chinese posters telling us about the dangers of damaging our "partnership" with China is almost as amusing as bankers crying about their "great concern" for the little guys who will be hurt in all of their doom and gloom scenarios if we enact banking regulation. Trying to hide obvious self-interest behind a paper thin veneer of altruistic objectivity only makes the obvious self-interest seem more tawdry and makes the entire argument appear shady.
I doubt the Chinese care much for the American people and seeing as how a slight minority of Americans seem to believe that Asians eat fetuses in soups (yay references to one of the countless China threads out there!), the same can be said for the other side of this relationship. That said, that really has little to nothing to do with the issue at hand...really, the Obama Administration lacks cohesion on their foreign policy. I thought it would be one of the crowning achievements of this Administration but I just don't understand how they can pursue a policy of appeasing Russia (which for God's sakes, just invaded a friendly, sovereign nation recently) and antagonizing China over stupid little issues. It's blatantly obvious that the Administration has very little clout in terms of getting things done on an international basis and that was before this little rivalry with China began.
This question could be flipped around "Why antagonize the US?" As the op-ed notes: [rquoter]The U.S. is as dependent on China for its economic and military health and economic growth as China is dependent on the U.S. for its key markets, reserve finance, and global capitalist trading regime. It is self-destructive folly to sacrifice this core synergy at the heart of global capitalism in order to gain concessions on global warming, dollar weakening, or Internet politics. [/rquoter] Clearly the Chinese are as dependent on us as we are on them so why don't they just cave into our demands? We are mutually dependent but that doesn't mean we don't have our own interests and our own domestic issues. Somtimes those interest will conflict.
The problem with your analogy is that China is not a big bank that can be whipped, and US is not exactly the congress or the feds of the world. Get that attitude fixed first. A lot of words for hate. As to the article itself, meow, a cheap shot from a republican writer. Unless there is a pattern, the incidents described don't amount to a hostile China policy. For one, US has never promised it would stop selling arms to Taiwan, and there is an obvious self-interest in selling arms to Taiwan. The F-16s Bush Sr. sold to Taiwan were far more provocative than some mimi anti-missile system. Timing is the thing. All it seems to be so far is that Obama didn't went out his way to please China.
I don't see how in the slightest that that is relevant. The analogy is about Bankers and pro-Chinese posters, not China and banks. Another example that might be more acceptable to you would be listening to AIPAC tell the US Government that talking with Iran will result in the legitimization of anti-American forces and impending rise of a unified Middle East united in hatred of America. The people who do that would be equally or more interested in furthering the Israeli agenda as opposed to the US agenda. They will never advocate a position good for the USA but bad for Israel. Or, alternately, American Muslims who advise that the USA should completely break off ties with Israel and recognize the Palestinian Authority as the rightful government. These people are thinking as much or more for their fellow Muslims. They really aren't objective advocates or analysts of American foreign policy. There isn't anything wrong with that. The problem is when you try to provide an analysis that makes it look like you are only looking out for the USA. The fundamental issue is people who have sides and preferred outcomes, or mixed loyalties trying to pawn off their preferred solutions as objective evaluations provided by disinterested outside observers. It doesn't matter if the guy on the other end is a bank, a country, a friend, an employee, etc.
Do you jaw at your brother, your girlfriend? What's it supposed to be like between countries? Hell, we've had trade wars with every ally you can name; and currency imbalances are essentially trade wars in artificially valued currencies. But I don't think we are anywhere near coming to blows; but we do need China to get on board with not having some proxy state ruining the planet for everyone. If the Middle East goes nuclear, the fallout falls on China. If sea level rises, all those brand new coastal cities go under too.
That is more capitalist worried about his potential markets. And I don't mind opinion pieces from one side, as long as the venue also is open to providing opinion pieces from the opposite side as well. The Chinese advocate in question is KingLeoric who cherry picked this article and has posted extensively as an advocate of China in the past.
Just as most US posters post with self-interest in mind, I'm pretty sure most Chinese posters are open about where their self-interest lies. The bolded is true, but that is not mutually exclusive to being able to advocate a position that is good for the USA and good for Israel, even if the well being of the USA isn't their primary interest. When the US tries to convince China allowing Iran to develop a nuke is bad for China's interests, because if Israel bombs Iran, oil prices will spike; it's done for US interests, but that doesn't mean it's not true. Single opinion pieces from one side are posted as OPs on this board all the time. You're free to post a why antagonize the US piece in this thread of course.
I may have misread but it seems to me that, by your definitions here, there is no objectivity anywhere, ever.
Maybe I haven't been following the news lately, but when have China ever had issues with domestic American policies? I've read constantly about Taiwan, Tibet, human rights, etc. But never about China being pissed at our conservatism, religiousness, p*rnography, or other social values. Of course, if I'm just being ignorant here, I apologize. But I've never really seen China thumbing their noses into our business... EVER. Yet we have criticized China on just about everything everything that doesn't appease us.
I really don't know if there is. Probably not. In fact, I know and have firmly believed for quite a while that there is no such thing. Every human being on the face of the earth has baggage. I'm not so much concerned about absolute objectivity as pretense as to what direction each individual's lack of objectivity falls. The best example I can think of was when the Bush White House hired a PR flack and back-doored him into the White House Press Corps to lob softball questions. I have no problem with the White House trying to get their side of the story out. I do have a major league problem with them trying to obfuscate and deceive about who was buttering this so-called "reporter's" bread. If you wanted to get really tricky, the White House could say, "Well we never actually SAID he was a real objective reporter." But by putting him in the pool and giving him credentials without very clear and open disclaimers, I see no difference between actively lying. If Hu Jintao himself wants to come on Clutchfans and let us know why he thinks the US is making a mistake, fine. Just make sure that he preferences the comments by saying, "Hey guys, here is my opinion for you guys on the mistake you are making from my position as leader of the PRC."
well, the whole currency manipulation thing is pretty spot on. for about 5+ years now, american politicians have been blaming china's "artificially undervalued" currency as the reason for the loss of american jobs and competitive edge. many american citizens also pick on china for manipulating their currency. this is the most ridiculous idea ever. how is WEAKENING out currency going to fix things? and this was before we borrowed billions of dollars from china.
Ya that's why I posted this article, to provide some opinion pieces from the other side. OK I cherry picked an article... How do I just pick an article? Maybe 1 that flames China would work? I come to this forum maybe once every 2 or 3 weeks... My post count is no match for China flamers... But that's still too extensive for you?
The PRC has been critical of US fiscal policy while at the sametime the devaluation of the Yuan affects the US economy. On foreign policy the PRC has sold arms to a countries like Iran and North Korea which are considered hostile to the US.
That's it? The PRC sells weapons to countries US don't like(but really aren't connected if it weren't for the whole "War on Terror"). And they wish to debate about fiscal policy. I mean, for Christ sakes, we put our nose into what amount's China's domestic policies. We tell them how they should run their country. We make noise about what they should do with their own territory. We sell weapons to what effectively they consider a "rogue state" that's official under their rule. Seriously, we should be upset because they devalue their own currency? If that's all the complaint China had about the US, then the US obviously thinks of China like a r****ded little brother. And not as a peer. Not that there's anything wrong with that... but you have to have enough power to get away with it.
No, we would never use "r****ded," that being déclassé. I think the proper word needed to describe China is insecure.
