I Heart Henry Paulson. China Is His Thing.
Not for anything he has said or done on the bailout, on which even those of us who agree it was necessary cannot truly be happy about. No, I like him for his opinions on what the United States must do in terms of its relations with China.
Paulson just came out with a very thoughtful piece in Foreign Affairs Magazine, entitled, "A Strategic Economic Engagement: Strengthening U.S.-Chinese Ties." The summary nicely summarizes the article as follows: "The prosperity of the United States and China depends on helping China further integrate into the global economic system." (h/t to The Black China Hand)
Paulson says that no matter how one views China, engagement is the best policy:
Some people suggest that China is a threat that must be countered or contained. Others argue that its growth is an opportunity for the U.S. economy and that Washington should manage this rising power through engagement. I believe that engagement is the only path to success.
This is the kind of article that can and should change minds.
Comments (6)
Read through and enter the discussion by using the form at the endlaosan - October 5, 2008 6:33 PM
The more I thought about the article the more sense it made to me (as it should for any China Hand worth his/her salt) and well worth a deeper analysis and perhaps experimentation at a lower (read: non-governmental) level such as us.
Jim - October 5, 2008 11:13 PM
Paulson's credibility is in the tank as he is a key figure in the Wall St. meltdown and shamelessly demands a boat load of money to bail out his friends. The bailout could benefit Goldman directly and that is good news for his stocks. He also peddles China for the benefit of Goldman, which also helps him a great deal.
chriswaugh_bj - October 7, 2008 5:18 AM
"This is the kind of article that can and should change minds. "
Unfortunately that usually means that the article in question won't change any minds. I'll try not to indulge in undue pessimism, but the simple fact is those who choose the wise road are those condemned to walk alone.
Mark Anthony Jones - October 7, 2008 5:21 AM
Paulson says: "...no matter how one views China, engagement is the best policy."
Oh! Really??!!!???!!!!
Talk about stating the bleeding obvious. Why would anyone think otherwise? If the United States was to economically and or diplomatically disengage with China, which country would most likely be damaged the most?
Mark Anthony Jones - October 7, 2008 5:08 PM
Chris wrote; "...the simple fact is those who choose the wise road are those condemned to walk alone."
I agree that this is very often the way humans operate, but I doubt it applies in this case. Now that the world's national economies are more interconnected and interdependent than ever, most political and business leaders alike undertsand the need for engagement, as opposed to disengagement. One would have to be quite literally insane to think otherwise.
The idea that a country like the United States for example, could benefit from disengaging with China is just too silly for words. Perhaps there are still a few dinosaurs around who imagine that kick-starting a new Cold War might revitalise what is aleady a highly militarised economy.
Betty - October 9, 2008 2:17 AM
The China brand has suffered a severe set back through the milk melamine scandal, after successful Olympics.
In Europe and the US, children do not drink Chinese milk. In China, the setback is more severe.