- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 70 Hour
- Reading permission
|Perhaps it is because the US still sees China as a contemporary embodiment of the west's frisson of fear about the 'yellow peril', last labelled onto the Japanese, now onto the Chinese as 'chinks'. Are we therefore finally now on the last leg of the China Exclusion Act 1882? Copy code
- "Actually, the US' current China policy, which is full of chinks, cannot stand scrutiny."
The US damning fear and hatred of China as competitor is kinda strange since at the same time, some of the US policy-makers make haste to wax to the world about the power the US still has to maintain its imperial global supremacy in all fields, evidenced by its cavalier dictating of terms whenever it so fancies.
If one is that strong and no one is denying it, why fear any competitor, least of all a China which only wants to be moderately prosperous in the same way the US and other western countries had also done so in their past to raise the standard of living of their own folks? In this day and age of enlightenment, is it still what is good for me needn't be good for you?
Failing to so engage meaningfully with China, the US is now resorting to targeting it as prime competitor to be stopped at all costs. However, that carries a contradiction. If China is a prime competitor, why should the US demand that China spend USD100 Billion more in order to reduce a trade deficit not of China's making? If the US citizens didn't buy, would the Chinese suppliers have been able to sell for whatever other reasons the US side can construct?
Furthermore, making such a demand is contrary to the global free market system that the US itself through its multinationals has created in order to make things more cheaply wherever they can do so in order to earn more profits for themselves while enabling their US citizens to buy things cheaper and so realize the American Dream faster despite internal financial crises of their own making.
And it would not have been lost on politicians, industrialists and investors throughout the world that any foreign government making such trade number demands on a sovereign state this year can also do it again next year and the year after, ad nauseum. Isn't that then monopoly of trade deficit reductions? Should an international court of law therefore be convened to see if that should call for anti-trust protection of China, for instance?
The US foreign policy these days is simply cakeism - i want your cake and you can just sit by and watch me continue eating it like how i have done so before.
It can't be anything else that can be pulled out from the US ringmaster's rabbit hat. Democracy? what's that in today's US whose White House long tainted by global malfeasance can still maintain semblance of being anglo-saxon white while the rest of the world has moved on to other colors? Protecting the free world? has wealth-and-progress exporting China exported any revolution at the same time lately? Military expansionism? who is ringing who with tarmac-ed airfields, ironclads, submersibles, nukes, drones and geosynchronous satellites while challenging others by quoting international rules of law only referred to when it is of especial interest for the expounder ever eager to dispute historical facts and play today's order of mischief? Were this not so, it would not have been necessary to also make outward attempts at blackmailing for sovereign votes by using funds meant to do good in the first place.
It is precisely when one has the most power that one must exercise the most restraint. In railing against countries like China, the US as a global superpower has decided instead to smote, cutting the knot impatiently with one severing stroke of its sword. A knot however knotty can be untied with care and diligence else the second law of thermodynamics would have been confounded. Yet the US is starting to believe the panacea for all its self-created ailments is protectionism and therefore let's start that with a trade war because wars are good for industry and oil suppliers, and bugger the poor dylanic hoi-polloi who will be doin' the dyin'.
What is the tipping point today? It is the next sexy term of re-balancing by disengagement. But doing so will mean severing the global supply chains which have held the world together. And since the sword is rusty, doing so will generate toxic side-effects that will diminish even more jobs not just in the US but worldwide in other countries as well at exactly the time when this world economy can grow faster to create bigger markets in which US interests - if they are primed to be inventive and industrious - would be able to make more profits than by destructive protectionist measures.
And the US has the potential to do that with saner and more far-sighted policies in cooperation with China and others. All it needs now is just one rational voice asking one rational question:
What will happen after if we continue to target other countries with virulence that will only embed permanent tensions and create the very shadows of mistrust that will haunt all for generations to come to no one's benefit?
To hindsight, foresight must be added. After all, you can't gallop ahead using only hind legs.