Opinion OpEd-Elites realizing that opening up the West to China did not bring about political liberalization

[MicroBrew]

- This OpEd from the Arizona Republic states that there is bipartisan consensus that engagement with China is coming to a dead end .

- That the Western establishment believed , post Deng's reforms, China would liberalize as a result of economic opportunities and the West opening up to it.

- US China Economy and Security review commission recommends what amounts to "decoupling" even if they won't actually say the word.

I don’t know that the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission would describe what it recommends in its latest report as decoupling. But it provides a raft of specific steps that could fairly be placed under that rubric.

--
China isn't going to change. It's time to break some of our economic ties

There is a general and bipartisan consensus that the engagement approach to China has come to a dead end.

Engagement was the bipartisan paradigm that guided U.S. relations with China since the market reforms of Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s. The belief was that the benefits of trade would give China a stake in, and thus engender its support for, a U.S.-led, rules-based international order.

And there was a hope, even an expectation, that rising prosperity would lead to internal political liberalization in China.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-isnt-going-change-time-130118764.html
------------

So the West thought China would join hands with the Western led New World Order and shed their authoritarian ways gradually, as a result of economic and trade relationships and uplifting. Instead China has used the past few decades to build up its war machine, bully neighbors and threaten to unseat Western power.

I am shocked that China wants to rule the world. Now these same policy wonks and foreign policy geniuses want us to believe Saudi Arabia is liberalizing, so we must give Bin Salman a pass.

 

[Whippy McGee]

The "smart" policy makers got it wrong on political liberalization of China, but also gave away our manufacturing base and paid for the Chinese Military and global reach to expand way beyond what they expected.

 

[phoenixikki]

We can blame both Republicans and Democrats for that.

 

[MicroBrew]

The "smart" policy makers got it wrong on political liberalization of China, but also gave away our manufacturing base and paid for the Chinese Military and global reach to expand way beyond what they expected.

And gave China "Most Favored Nation" trading status.
And allowed China to enter the World Trade Organization.


The CCP played our establishment epically.

 

[White Whale]

Crazy it took this long to realize doing business with China was a horrible idea.

It's been known for years China is using slave labor to make cheap goods for many big businesses.

 

[MicroBrew]

Crazy it took this long to this to realize doing business with China was a horrible idea.

It's been known for years China is using slave labor to make cheap goods for many big businesses.

And they have been ripping off American intellectual property for decades, to a degree not seen anywhere else, but our establishment turned a blind eye because it was the cost of doing business with China.

 

[phoenixikki]

And gave China "Most Favored Nation" trading status.
And allowed China to enter the World Trade Organization.


The CCP played our establishment epically.

I can't believe believe the day would come when I would agree with @MicroBrew .

 

[Rhood]

The pandemic was a wakeup call about the side effects of globalization.

When we have to depend on manufacturing from other countries after shutting down factories all across America, we would inevitably face mass shortages during a time of crisis.

 

[Sketch]

Everything is going according to plan. Exceeding expositions actually.

 

[Ruprecht]

I don't think they cared about their authoritarian ways all that much, so long as that authoritarianism followed the same path of economic liberalism as Vietnam and Singapore. Which, to be fair, was exactly what they were doing up until Hu Jintao (whose rise to power was unrelated to the earlier Youth League faction) and the following takeover by the "princelings". Even a degree of protectionism was somewhat expected, as with post WWII Japan and the development of South Korea.
What was unthinkable was how quickly those changes could be reverted without overwhelming use of force, and that potential for economic liberalism to empower the urban "princelings" to a degree that would effectively remove all power from the progressive influence of the Tuan Pai/Youth League faction.
Not that this sort of backsliding has been restricted to single party authoritarian regimes for that matter.

 

[RogerB08]

We can blame both Republicans and Democrats for that.

And capitalism.

 

[Scheme]

China gave us decades of cheap products (which hid inflation in many ways) and we gave them a bunch of IOUs. I'd say America did just fine and even fleeced China for the most part, apart from completely destroying it's own manufacturing in the process.

 

[AndroidRage]

- This OpEd from the Arizona Republic states that there is bipartisan consensus that engagement with China is coming to a dead end .

- That the Western establishment believed , post Deng's reforms, China would liberalize as a result of economic opportunities and the West opening up to it.

- US China Economy and Security review commission recommends what amounts to "decoupling" even if they won't actually say the word.

I don’t know that the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission would describe what it recommends in its latest report as decoupling. But it provides a raft of specific steps that could fairly be placed under that rubric.

--
China isn't going to change. It's time to break some of our economic ties

There is a general and bipartisan consensus that the engagement approach to China has come to a dead end.

Engagement was the bipartisan paradigm that guided U.S. relations with China since the market reforms of Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s. The belief was that the benefits of trade would give China a stake in, and thus engender its support for, a U.S.-led, rules-based international order.

And there was a hope, even an expectation, that rising prosperity would lead to internal political liberalization in China.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-isnt-going-change-time-130118764.html
------------

So the West thought China would join hands with the Western led New World Order and shed their authoritarian ways gradually, as a result of economic and trade relationships and uplifting. Instead China has used the past few decades to build up its war machine, bully neighbors and threaten to unseat Western power.

I am shocked that China wants to rule the world. Now these same policy wonks and foreign policy geniuses want us to believe Saudi Arabia is liberalizing, so we must give Bin Salman a pass.

This is all bullshit of course. This was all done because big business saw dollar signs. They don't give a shit about Authoritarianism. They never have. If they did then why are we so chummy with Saudi Arabia and many more authoritarian regimes?

 

[MicroBrew]

China gave us decades of cheap products (which hid inflation in many ways) and we gave them a bunch of IOUs. I'd say America did just fine and even fleeced China for the most part, apart from completely destroying it's own manufacturing in the process.

They ripped off American intellectual property. Ripped off defense technology. Made their ICBMs more accurate with the help of a traitorous American corporation. Artifically kept their currency ( Yuan) low , thereby undercutting US manufacturing. China has flooded ours and other markets with cheap goods and raw materials, to destroy local manufacturing.

Overall China has benefitted much much more than us. We could have had cheap manufacturing from anywhere, and many countries do supply cheap consumer goods. China needed us far far more than we needed them.

 

[MicroBrew]

This is all bullshit of course. This was all done because big business saw dollar signs. They don't give a shit about Authoritarianism. They never have. If they did then why are we so chummy with Saudi Arabia and many more authoritarian regimes?

Ofcourse big business cares about quarterly figures, but that does not preclude the thinking that China opening up economically = they would liberalize.

The West had minimal trade with Cuba and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. If big business profits trumped everything, including national security, why didn't the West have free trade with the Soviets? Why are there sanctions on Iran?

 

[Yehudim]

I don't think they cared about their authoritarian ways all that much, so long as that authoritarianism followed the same path of economic liberalism as Vietnam and Singapore. Which, to be fair, was exactly what they were doing up until Hu Jintao (whose rise to power was unrelated to the earlier Youth League faction) and the following takeover by the "princelings". Even a degree of protectionism was somewhat expected, as with post WWII Japan and the development of South Korea.
What was unthinkable was how quickly those changes could be reverted without overwhelming use of force, and that potential for economic liberalism to empower the urban "princelings" to a degree that would effectively remove all power from the progressive influence of the Tuan Pai/Youth League faction.
Not that this sort of backsliding has been restricted to single party authoritarian regimes for that matter.

We’ve sort of touched on this before but it is false to say that is exactly what they were doing because that means you’ve summed up Chinese-American partnership since 1971 in just one (1) decade, the mid 90s to the mid 2000s.

They weren’t liberalizing in the political sense in the 80s, and Jiang Zemin got to where he was by thoroughly backing a crackdown on pro-democracy protesters. In fact, they weren’t even really liberalizing politically during that time period, no matter how much lip-service they gave it. Certainly some social liberalization came about but even then, when people had too much access to information, they started walling off the internet, for example. So while there’s a lot of evidence to support that idea, it was really a short piece in a long story.

And I’m not saying that everyone who believed that is a fool, everybody believed that, I believed that. But I’m just trying to put the history in the proper context. Just because we thought it was so doesn’t mean it was really so.

 

[Yehudim]

China gave us decades of cheap products (which hid inflation in many ways) and we gave them a bunch of IOUs. I'd say America did just fine and even fleeced China for the most part, apart from completely destroying it's own manufacturing in the process.

Well shelling out manufacturing isn’t some small thing and something that you’re not considering is the geopolitical impact.

We stood by for nearly 30 years and let them build themselves up militarily with our aid either through doing nothing or allowing business to build their economy up. Now we have a formidable foe in Asia.

For sure, we benefited from economic ties with China, but ultimately for the most part, what they gave us was low value added. Obviously they are the winning party by going from Maoist poverty to a relatively advanced economy, thanks to foreign investment.

 

[Deorum]

And gave China "Most Favored Nation" trading status.
And allowed China to enter the World Trade Organization.

The CCP played our establishment especially.

This is old hat, die has been cast, water under the bridge, ship has long sailed type shit. For all the hate she gets (and much is deserved), Pelosi called and opposed this 30+ years ago. She had a small group of representatives on both sides of the aisle who co-signed, but they were overwhelmingly opposed by not only the White House - which wields enormous unilateral power on trade policy - but both chambers of Congress who did the bidding of capitalist class corporate masters at the expense of American (light) manufacturing and workers.

 

[Fluffernutter]

Thanks Max Baucus!

Yes, I know that he was late to the game. But, he is the embodiment of what is wrong in DC.

Step 1 - get elected to Congress.

Step 2 - become a political appointee ambassador to China.

Step 3. - Become a paid shill for the Chinese government.

 

[freakroor]

where are the people who are responsible for this? why dont they have to answer for it..