Obama is becoming tougher on China after partisan criticism. He recently filed two cases at the World Trade Organization against China's trade policies, and indicated he will move warships off the seas of China according to this New York Times article tracking Obama's position on China. Earlier in his administration, Obama tried to appease China by accommodating demands such as not meeting with the Dalai Lama or having a highly regulated trip to China hoping for "good will" (Landler of NY Times). China responded by not controlling greenhouse gases and other climate control policies, not dealing with Iran quickly enough, and "bullying other countries" about nearby territory. This exchange reminds me of the Ally's appeasement policy during the time leading up to World War II. After China's lack of responsivenss, Obama has had a much more firm policy on China. With the coming election, both Obama and Romney are "bashing China" to gain the support of people in industries in competition with the Chinese. Romney has promised a tougher stance on China than his rival specifically relating to currency, while Obama claims that Romney has outsourced jobs to China. The complaint that Obama filed with the World Trade Organization echoes a larger sentiment of fear that the Chinese are hurting American manufacturers, so by having a tough stance on that part of China the candidates can try to woo voters. However, a multitude of articles have come out with the idea that scapegoating China's exports sounds good now, but ultimately the U.S. should try to open China's domestic market and increase free trade (Chicago Tribune) to promote a healthy economy in America. A Washington Post article, echoes this sentiment advising against protectionism that could lead to a trade war. Xinhua, China's official press, cited the Washington Post article on their website which seems to say that they approve of the idea of open trade and less bashing of their country (this sentence needs work).
5 comments:
I think that Romney's attempt to attract voters by bashing China, and other foreign countries, is not only ineffective but idiotic. Although inflammatory remarks may appeal to patriotism they are ignorant. As the article pointed out, China is an essential trade partner and we would benefit through increased cooperation with them. Romney often makes baseless xenophobic remarks such as naming Russia as "our No.1...foe" or insulting the London Olympics. These comments are unnecessary and convey a narrow perception of foreign policy.
I agree with David that poking a stick at China will not help Romney or Obama gain more supporters. China is one of the USA's largest trading partners and the largest holder of US debt (second only to the Federal Reserve). Restricting free trade with China will only end up harming our already damaged economy.
While I do believe that China has done some inexcusable actions, taking a firm stance against the nation does not mean Obama or Romney have to instigate a trade war. Our foreign policy should be to seek the goodwill of all nations.
In the words of President George Washington: "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."
I think it's very ironic that people are bashing on China for providing the world with cheap auto parts. After all, it's only making our cars cheaper. Applying tariffs might be good for raising revenue, seeing as we get so many auto parts from them and that amount is rising. But back when America was newer, most people disliked tariffs for making goods more expensive. I doubt that restricting trade would lead to trade war before people here complain that cars are too expensive. And if that leads to the US auto part industry making parts cheaper, people will also complain that the jobs don't pay enough money. In any case, people are hard to please. I think free trade, as the articles argue, would be better than limiting trade. Eventually as China's economy rises, the car parts will inflate too, and perhaps the industry in the US can rise again.
Responding to the quote by Washington cited by Matthew, "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible," I do not think this ideal is feasible in reality. I think commerce and politics can not be separated today. Through commerce, two countries are tied more closely to each other diplomatically and politically, so, for example, country A could exert political influence on country B. In the post, Chicago Tribune was cited to be urging for a free trade with China to open up the Chinese market. Not a xenophobic or an isolationist myself, but I think free trade with China might/will increase US's dependence on the Chinese market, which would be in terms become a leverage that China could use to take a stronger position in future conflicts and leave the US with little options in terms of diplomacy (example: the recent boycott of Japanese good over the conflict over the sovereignty of Shenkaku/Diaoyu Island). As a result, I agree with the candidates' tougher stance on China as a country, and as a country/political entity only.
Post a Comment