Author: wchao37

When will the US start calling China the Big Bully? [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2019-6-14 10:06:55 |Display all floors
markwu Post time: 2019-6-13 23:06
Trump seeks an agreement yet threatens more tariffs if there is no meeting to discuss terms.

The ...

These posts take hours to pass through the new filters.

Donald Trump is not fit to be a political leader of Grenada (no offense to Grenada intended), let alone the U.S., which goes to show how maladaptive the U.S. electoral system is.

Ignorant and inexperienced political candidates often gesticulate and exaggerate just to impress their audience that they know what they are doing.

He is not expecting to get any deal at the G20 meeting because he is now trapped by his own lies and has to maintain this holier-than-thou attitude towards China to maintain his political momentum.

He won't have a meeting unless his opponent is a literal pushover, which I am sure is not the case here.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2019-6-14 12:15:51 |Display all floors
wchao37 Post time: 2019-6-14 10:06
These posts take hours to pass through the new filters.

Donald Trump is not fit to be a political ...

Martin Wolf, Financial Times, June 5 2019: The 100-Year Conflict

"Across-the-board rivalry with China is becoming an organizing principle of US economic, foreign and security policies...

The aim is US domination.   The means is control over China, or separation from China. Anybody who believes a rules-based multilateral order, our globalized economy, or even harmonious international relations, are likely to survive this conflict is deluded.  The astonishing white paper on the trade conflict, published on Sunday by China, is proof.  The - to me, depressing - fact is that on many points Chinese positions are right.

The US focus on bilateral imbalances is economically illiterate.  The view that theft of intellectual property has caused huge damage to the US is questionable. The proposition that China has grossly violated its commitments under its 2001 accession agreement to the World Trade Organization is hugely exaggerated.

Accusing China of cheating is hypocritical when almost all trade policy actions taken by the Trump administration are in breach of WTO rules, a fact implicitly conceded by its determination to destroy the dispute settlement system.

The US negotiating position vis-a-vis China is that “might makes right”.  This is particularly true of insisting that the Chinese accept the US role as judge, jury and executioner of the agreement.

A dispute over the terms of market opening or protection of intellectual property might be settled with careful negotiation.  Such a settlement might even help China, since it would lighten the heavy hand of the state and promote market-oriented reform.

But the issues are now too vexed for such a resolution. This is partly because of the bitter breakdown in negotiation. It is still more because the US debate is increasingly over whether integration with China's state-led economy is desirable. The fear over Huawei focuses on national security and technological autonomy.  Liberal commerce is increasingly seen as “trading with the enemy”.

This is the most important geopolitical development of our era.  Not least, it will increasingly force everybody else to take sides or fight hard for neutrality. But it is not only important. It is dangerous.

It risks turning a manageable, albeit vexed, relationship into all-embracing conflict, for no good reason. China’s ideology is not a threat to liberal democracy.....

An effort to halt China’s economic and technological rise is almost certain to fail.

Worse, it will foment deep hostility in the Chinese people. In the long run, the demands of an increasingly prosperous and well-educated people for control over their lives might still win out.  But that is far less likely if China’s natural rise is threatened.

Moreover, the rise of China is not an important cause of western malaise. That reflects far more the indifference and incompetence of domestic western elites. What is seen as theft of intellectual property reflects, in large part, the inevitable attempt of a rising economy to master the technologies of the day.  

Above all, an attempt to preserve the domination of 4 per cent of humanity over the rest is illegitimate....

Today's attack on China is the wrong war, fought in the wrong way, on the wrong terrain."

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2019-6-14 12:17:25 |Display all floors
In February 2019, Trump tweeted:

Trump Says.png

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2019-6-14 12:17:51 |Display all floors what did he do in May 2019 to Huawei?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2019-6-14 14:38:24 |Display all floors
markwu Post time: 2019-6-14 12:17 what did he do in May 2019 to Huawei?

He's put his personal stamp on the definition of a "pathological liar."

He cannot go to sleep unless he lies to his pillow at least once a night.

Mind you the words are "lie to" and not "lie on."

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2019-6-18 14:46:48 |Display all floors
wchao37 Post time: 2019-6-14 10:06
These posts take hours to pass through the new filters.

Donald Trump is not fit to be a political ...

He is anything but holier. More the embodiment of petulant belligerence catalyzed by an ego that is egged on by a bipolar disorder which seemingly naturalizes self-contradictions that expose a lack of real education for that matter critical thinking at adult level leading to some juvenile bravura for his lies, fabrications, innuendos and bellicosity.

As the pottiest PotUS in the annals of US politics, he has turmoiled the world in record time on some misplaced belief that his unstoppable two-year force will stir the immovable five-thousand-year rock. Yet he cannot possibly avoid knowing that the forces of gales and hurricanes which befall his own heartlands come and go whilst the rock of principles can only endure because principles are what maketh real men. Therefore, his might can never displace their right.

Which is why after the talks stalled, China came out with two position announcements, a white paper and a series of essays on seeking righteous truth (

Both are definitive on the principles of statehood by which China today stands on the international stage. They are the embodiment of a scientific approach to seeking clarity, truth and mutual cooperation that is amenable to constructive, progressive and multilateral changes tagged to the bigger picture of national rejuvenation and international cooperation.

With his patent art of the deal featuring only unipolar threats molded towards zero-sum destruction, what has Trump to say to both? His US has nothing in its international relations repertoire that comes even close to how China has organized herself internationally that is consonant and in tempo with her domestic developments.

And the reason is patently clear. When someone contradicts himself ever so often, who will want to deal with him, especially when he has a record of casting aspersions, making threats and outwardly showing unstatesmanlike aggression without a single atom of public conscience.

Let alone Iran's Pahlavi, even India's Modi would have come to such a conclusion after Trump's administration peremptorily cancelled the US' Generalized System Of Preference special status for India leading it to have to add its own tariffs on US products in response to US tariffs on its steel products. What for India yesterday, Japan, South Korea, Germany, France, Italy, Brazil et al especially Mexico, tomorrow. Quo vadis, the Chamberlain's of the world.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2019-6-18 16:08:50 |Display all floors
One would like to be charitable and say it's the company Trump keeps which has caused him to get such jaundiced views about China.

For instance, his soul-mate Bannon was seen and heard callowly ranting non-stop against China without letting his CNBC interviewer get her questions in. The informal and short word to describe such a guy is git. Short because one shouldn't have to waste time on the fanatical likes of him who not only needs a shave but also thinks his views are the only things that matter.

Trump took to tariffs because he thought it was an easy win-lose solution for unemployed US workers. If he had given a more careful moment's thought, hopefully adding some Wharton module on the effect of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs that had exarcebated their great depression of the 30s, he would have withheld his signing hand, maybe even cuff it to his wooden White House Resolute Desk.

Why? Because those jobs have been globalized precisely because the US manpower market has evolved away from such industries. If US consumers can get cheaper equivalent products elsewhere, why would they pay for pricier local products just to bail-out higher-waged workers who should have been reskilled in keeping with industrial changes in the world? Is the US as an advanced global superpower trying to compete with developing and emerging countries instead? But one repeats oneself.

Let's say the US still wants to keep those workers and maintain those industries. But then again US corporations won't want to fund those enterprises anymore because they know their pricier surplus makes can't be exported competitively which means their returns-on-investment will taper after a short business lifespan, blowing their funds, and also blowing the fuses of their shareholders/investors.

So if the US corporations won't, who would? Through her past investments in the US economy, China did. Take for example China's CRRC. It had won a tender at markedly lower price to supply Boston's subways with more than 280 carriages. It built a modern plant in Springfield, Massachusetts which was in the deindustrialization doldrums and proceeded to employ local US workers, infusing the business with Chinese manufacturing knowhow and money until Springfield's economic development head, K Kennedy, called "the CRRC investment is a return to US manufacturing roots". After 2014, that plant continued to win tenders to supply rail carriages to Chicago, Los Angeles and Philadelphia. In short, China revived US manufacturing, built a modern plant, transferred the latest technology, employed US workers and made the US plant a success with more orders in the pipeline. All without fanfare and at high wages to US workers and lowest cost to US consumers.

When Trump came onboard, his tariffs on steel started to jeopardize that US enterprise. When both industry and community in that neck of the woods appealed for exemption for the plant from the tariffs, the appeal was rejected. Moreover, lately the project has been stigmatized as some risky threat to national security, even after the locals who have benefited had expressed "surprise by the knee-jerk reactions in the world of trade that have happened in this country under this president".

US anti-China hawks Rubio and Schumer had said the CRRC investment was " part of China’s long-term strategy to undermine US industry and dominate the advanced technologies of the 21st century". One wonders if the advanced US industry had itself neglected its Springfield railcar manufacturing, wasn't the undermining all by them instead. China the benefactor has thus been wrongly and unjustly labeled a threat - for helping US workers, industry and consumers - to boot. Talk about ingratitude.

As for the railcars being a national threat, what gives? CRCC has explained it inputs to the Springfield plant the rail carriage chassis shell only with the networking and monitoring systems supplied by US, Japanese and German suppliers who also supply to other railcar manufacturers in Canada, Japan and South Korea, furthermore with the passenger safety camera data routinely sent to the respective local railway transit authorities in the US only. If these days a railcar body presents a national threat, the bidet toilet seat will be an international threat next.

It is a tragic-comedy the US administration is being consumed by its own mythomanic sinophobia when investments such as CRCC by China has actually been helping Trump solve his gripe about jobless US workers. China's investments have actually been helping rebuild the US economy, not least providing funds that are used for hightech R&D, a point already voiced out loud by many American hightech companies after Trump's fiascos on Huawei, ZTE etc.

The basic principle is this: trade and technology sanctions are not to be unilateral actions for win-lose bilateral relationships BECAUSE both trade and technology functions are in reality composed of triangular relationships made of win-win for all-win markets.

And one thought Pennsylvania's Wharton where Trump said he had enrolled was ivy-league. Now he will have to face the specter of his own doing - a 20% (1Q2018) chance of a US recession heading towards 45%(4Q2019) - based on present scenario. What if next month things get worse?  72%(2Q2020).

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email:
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.