- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 3473 Hour
- Reading permission
Whether on foreign policy, economic trade or technology transfer, the grating and persistent US leitmotif on China has been containment not engagement or cooperation. And on the other two remaining matters of ideology and currency exchange, the US cannot fault China as well since China does not export her ideology which applies only to strengthening her domestic organization for the state transformation reforms that the US and others have in fact encouraged but seem to have conveniently forgotten; as for currency exchange, China has responsibly shored up her currency only diminished by the impact of US unilateral tariffs on markets; notice how Mnuchin who had said he would investigate on China has suddenly become mute on the matter...|
We can see for ourselves how after the illegitimate invasion of Iraq which had killed over a hundred thousand civilians, Bush immediately swung the US naval fleet into Asian waters when there was no military tensions to justify such a travesty against peace, only fishermen delivering kippers. This was of course subsequently followed by Obama inventing the US pivot to extend military leverage in the same region. So it requires no foresight to conclude after China had helped to smoothen matters on DPRK denuclearisation, ergo world peace as brother of global prosperity, Trump it was this time who upon discarding his cheeseburger would unleash with aplomb his trade tariff attack on China. That's what he did. And that's where we still are today. Ask no more the questions - who has been totally responsible to the world community? China; and who has been totally irresponsible to the world community? The US. As may be said, with 'friends' like the US, who needs enemies?
After all, we know that in criminal law evidence, the felon exposes his intention in his choice of action. In the case of trade tariffs on China products, the Trump administration has deliberately and disingenuously picked all those products which have supply elasticity. In other words, products for which alternative foreign sources may be substitutes. Therefore, the intention was never to reduce the US trade deficit with China since those substituted imports would in the aggregate not reduce the US trade deficit either as it would only next move to other foreign countries; in fact the deficits would increase since those countries have lesser means to buy as much from the US as China presently.
Therefore, it was merely to reduce China's growth and rise in a world market where the comparative advantages of supply chain efficiency, product quality, production capability and capacity, and price effectiveness reside in China from years of strenuous sacrifice and effort that her government and peoples have displayed, the same comparative advantages which have also strengthened and profited hundreds of US multinationals which have invested and set up their large plants on China soil, in turn earning through their access to the China market the very market shares that have shot up their asset valuations and shareholder dividends year after year to keep their domestic innovation projects churning out new products that has in turn increased US net IP assets.
Which comes back to the 1Q19 (and no, that's not Trump's IQ). Should hope still spring eternal there will be a permanent resolution? If Cohn had to extract from the oval office table Trump's agreement to trade-punish South Korea, who would think Trump won't go back on his words after he wins his bunny points? If he had been the sincere about wanting to find a common solution, he would not have raised tariffs when he already knew the China delegate was already in Washington and about to discuss matters to come to a resolution. On the part of Trump for that matter his advisors, that is not just poor diplomacy; it is also hegemonious insincerity. How can any deal be struck with those who only want to game their exclusive wins targeting the complete erasure of growth and rise of another sovereign power? To allow for that would mean a country like China would be allowing for a country like the US to determine its destiny - and since both will be around for eternity - forever. Absurdity heaped on stupidity topped with incongruity.
China's exports to the US are but a minute fraction of her GDP which is in the main domestically generated. In the eventuality of a bad deal with the US, she may be forced by the unreasonable demands of the US to close off her entire market from US makers, but open it to other countries especially the EU and Asia which should be open to mutual cooperation and exchanges. The US can keep its own illusions and delusions of its own design. As was said, dogs may bark but the caravan has moved on. This would however be kinda sad, tragic in fact, considering how much potential the US peoples have in great relationships with China peoples. Just thinking about their past deeds as the Flying Tigers volunteer squadron suffices.