On Not "Antagonizing" China. Or How Many Enemies Does The US Need?
Every once in a while, I get an email accusing me of costing Americans their jobs and going on and on about how China is terrible and anyone who has anything to do with China is terrible, presumably including me.
I usually respond by talking about how China is a reality and how countries should be judged not only on where they are now, but also on where they came from and where they are going, and on how under those criteria, there are plenty of countries far far worse with whom the United States deals every day. I will then usually link over to the most recent story of US ally Saudi Arabia executing a juvenile or someone who has been raped or converted from Islam or to an article of how US ally Egypt turns a blind eye to the slaughtering of Coptic Christians and then ask the person what they purpose "we" should do about those sorts of things. And what about US allies that do not allow women to vote or drive cars and in which homosexuality is a capital offense? Or the Sudan, which is engaged in genocide, or something very close to that. Why are we not more focused on those countries? Is it racism? Is it that we don't care? Is it strategic interest? Is it too controversial? Is it that we believe change is not possible? What?
I then talk about how as an unabashedly patriotic American I believe it to be in my country's best interest to seek to make common cause with those countries whose values do not include wanting to kill all Americans.
George Gilder says something roughly similar in the Wall Street Journal, in an opinion piece entitled, "Why Antagonize China?:"
While attempting to appease a long list of utterly unappeasable foes—Iran, North Korea, Hamas, Hezbollah, and even Hugo Chávez—today the U.S. treats China, perhaps our most crucial economic partner, as an adversary because it defies us on global warming, dollar devaluation, and Internet policy.
* * * *
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the president's friends at Google are hectoring China on Internet policy. Although commanding twice as many Internet users as we do, China originates fewer viruses and scams than does the U.S. and with Taiwan produces comparable amounts of Internet gear. As an authoritarian regime, it obviously will not be amenable to an open and anonymous net regime. Protecting information on the Internet is a responsibility of U.S. corporations and their security tools, not the State Department.
Gilder goes on to explain why the United States should seek to ally itself with a capitalistic Islamist-fighting China:
A foreign policy of serious people at a time of crisis will recognize that the current Chinese regime is the best we can expect from that country. The Chinese revitalization of Asian capitalism remains the most important positive event in the world in the last 30 years. Not only did it release a billion people from penury and oppression but it transformed China from a communist enemy of the U.S. into a now indispensable capitalist partner. It is ironic that liberals who once welcomed appeasement of the monstrous regime of Mao Zedong now become openly bellicose at various murky incidents of Internet hacking.Nonetheless, with millions of Islamists on its borders and within them, China is nearly as threatened by radical Islam as we are. China has a huge stake in the global capitalist economy that Islamic terrorists aim to overthrow. And China, like the U.S., is so heavily dependent on Taiwanese manufacturing skills and so intertwined with Taiwan's industry that China's military threat to the island is mostly theater.
Gilder concludes by asking "How many enemies do we need?"
Great question.
What do you think?
UPDATE: Here is a great example (Afghanistan) on how the US, China, and Russia can and should work together against Islamic extremist groups like the Taliban.
FURTHER UPDATE: In this post, entitled, "Obama’s China Team Sitting on the Bench?"
China Hearsay posits that maybe the reason the United States' policy on China has been so out of whack is because President Obama has been listening to experts on Chicago politics, not China politics.
Comments (57)
Read through and enter the discussion by using the form at the endZZX - February 6, 2010 7:10 PM
Gilder concludes by asking "How many enemies do we need?"
Certainly not this one:
http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
Hemulen - February 6, 2010 7:25 PM
The claims that China has "millions of Islamicists within its borders". Evidence?
SIlly - February 6, 2010 7:27 PM
China has been our enemy all along. They're only showing their true face now. I guess they feel they don't need to bide their time, hide their strength any more.
And yes, anyone helping them with their giant theft of Western technology and displacement of Western manufacturing bears part of the responsibility for the giant problems our kids will have to fix.
We already are at war. We just haven't woken up to the reality here in the US.
theAdmiral - February 6, 2010 7:29 PM
Dan, to your first point:
I am so very tired of people in the US complaining about China...
The products, with few exception, being produced in China are being produced there because of the lower cost of production. Period.
Just as automobile manufacturers (Nissan, Mercedez) chose to build plants in the South instead of Detroit. Costs.
Lower costs = more profits.
To your second point, dealing with other countries. Do people realize how bad Saudi Arabia is in terms of rights? I doubt it, and that's a shame.
As long as the US continues to run a trade deficit with the rest of the world we will be going in the hole. Just my opinion...
That means that we, the US, must trade with countries that may not share common values or beliefs. And, we must try to balance that trade as much as possible.
We need China as much as they need us. Remember that their penny bank is full of US currency and if it devalues so does their nest egg.
The World War II Allies represents a perfect example of strange bedfellows. Countries with fundamentally different civics, joining together.
In the fight again radical religious fundamentalists, the US and China must out aside political beliefs and focus on the threat.
As far as the US trying to balance trade and not compromise our democratic beliefs in dealing with China, Saudi Arabia and other countries... Well, it's sort of like practitioners of the worlds oldest profession doing everything but letting you kiss them on the lips.
Silly - February 6, 2010 7:31 PM
"Certainly not this one:
http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt"
They have 800B of Treasures, we have a printing press. Let them sell their Treasuries and other dollar holdings. It will help the US in the long run.
Joe - February 6, 2010 7:39 PM
I think you are confused. We deal with egypt and UAE, we are not them. Saying that China is just as bad as other countries we talk to doesn't justify it. That's the logic 5 year olds use to get out of trouble with their parents.
As a patriot, you should believe in preserving the rights outlined in our constitution to all. Not wanting to kill Americans is not the only value you should use to judge a countries intentions. Things like freedom and justice for their own people are more important that what they think of us. Also, it is hard to form an opinion of any country when your media is censored on a daily basis. So the fact that they do not want to kill us is only true because that is what their leaders want them to think at this moment.
I would also like to see from whom you acquired your virus statistic from. It is very hard to track where a virus came from, the most basic trick for computer hackers is to hide their IP addresses and intentionally use an IP address from a different country. One place that does try very hard at coming up with such statistics, viruslist.com, has china at over 50% of all computer threat attempts last year (malware, spyware, viruses, hack attempts) so I am guessing you just made this up.
Google left China and is paving the way for the rest of the worlds companies and governments alike. Just because China has money doesn't mean you should be bending morals to get at it. The US can survive without China. We should be demanding a more open and democratic government or we should begin to ween ourselves off of their exports that we have somewhat become addicted to.
And finally Taiwan, the reason China has its panties in such a bundle. The US signed long ago a treaty with Taiwan that, among other things, said the US will sell Taiwan defensive arms in an attempt to allow the sovereign country to defend itself. These arms would just be used to defend themselves long enough for America to get their to fulfill the rest of the treaty, defending them from a Chinese attack.
So you can see I disagree with you on a lot. If you are a patriot then support the fight for freedom in all its forms. Don't stop with China, talk out about the other countries that regularly violate human rights and don't let it go on as only a whisper. Maybe we do need to stop allying with them and send a message to the rest of the world that we do still care about people's rights and the ideals that the US was founded on.
theAdmiral - February 6, 2010 7:59 PM
One more thing about Saudi Arabia
Below are selected American exports to Saudi Arabia in 2007 with the highest percentage sales increases from 2006.
Complete military aircraft … US$1.3 million (up from nil in 2006)
Non-monetary gold … $20.3 million (up 678,000% from 2006)
Soybeans … $8.5 million (up 16,608%)
Passenger car bodies and chassis … $27.7 million (up 7,106%)
Wine and related products … $33.5 million (up 384%).
Source
Interesting since possession or consumption is illegal in Saudi Arabia.
Panji Kelana - February 6, 2010 8:37 PM
The political leaders in USA are so getting used to have their wishes go unchallenged in the world stages. But now they feel upset with the firm stance of China, a stance that will not always go in line with their own interests!
In reality they don't really care who are their allies indeed as long as they serve their vested interests. The allies in fact comprise of many despotic rulers and totalitarian regimes with absolute and corruptive powers.
In the case of China, the USA is much annoyed that China will not simply act and cooperate as told. The USA is not yet ready to accept and live with the facts of a new China...a strong and powerful China! A China that does not hesitate to say 'no' (cf. Japan that always acts in subordination to America).
You don't feed people with the propagated democracy values and freedom as twisted by those political leaders of the USA.
Just see the case of India and Indonesia...where exist a rampant corruption and extreme disparity between the few rich and the vast majority of poor people! What to be proud of the so-called 'democracy' and 'freedom of speech'? The political leaders there are only giving one speech to another...leaving the poverty problems unsolved! They just fool their own people with such illusion of freedom while leaving out the majority with total incapacity economically!
And when they try to impose such propagandas upon Chinese people, they simply ignore the very facts about how the lives of many HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Chinese people are uplifted from the poverty...in a gigantic size that has no precendence before.
But why wonder? Do they really care that lives of several hundreds of millions of Chinese people are much improved?
Does it matter to them? NO, it's a purely statistic figure. And because you won't listen and act as i tell you, you are a bad guy! That's what those inhabitants in white house and capitol hill perceive China today!
It's up to the American people and leaders how they will perceive and interact with a new, strong and powerful China in an unprecedented developments! Like it or not, they better adjust and behave themselves to coexist peacefully with a new China!
AND STOP GIVING ORDERS! It's absolutely not a master vs. slave relationship, neither a dominant vs. subordinate one!
You can't tell lies and misinformation from time to time and expect other people to remain fooled to buy in....
If only the Americans will learn the new reality and accept it gracefully then a peaceful, friendly and beneficial relationship will prevail.
kelana (Asian)
Phil Hand - February 6, 2010 9:23 PM
Bizarreness. What weird fantasy land does this man live in? What "appeasement" of Hamas has the US done recently? In order to counter the military threat from Iran, the US just deployed loads of missiles in the Gulf, and is maintaining sanctions against it because of the nuclear issue. North Korea has zero trade with the US. Hugo Chavez is persona non grata, the CIA were thinking about assassinating him.
On the other hand, the US ushered China into the WTO and maintains the world's largest trade flow with China. Obama recently visited China and showed the greatest respect (and got his ass kicked in the US media because of it). The US is also educating the next generation of China's academic and business leaders. In terms of security, the US supported China in getting the probably non-existent East Turkestan Independence Movement (forgotten if that's the right name) put on the UN list of terrorist organizations.
Every little exchange in the US-China relationship gets picked over and blown out of all proportion. Or at least, that's the only explanation I can think of for why this idiot has completely misread the situation and decided to claim that the US has a friendlier policy toward North Korea than it does toward China.
Where do they find these people?
Phil Hand - February 6, 2010 9:30 PM
Sorry, supplementary comment:
"Mr. Gilder is a founder of the Discovery Institute"
Wikipedia:
"The Discovery Institute is a conservative non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design."
That's where they find these people.
stuart - February 6, 2010 10:28 PM
I think Obama reached out to Beijing (and Iran, DPRK, Burma) and has learned the hard way the reality of dealing with a triumphalist China.
America hasn't sought enmity with China; quite the reverse, in fact. So in answer to your question, the US doesn't need any enemies, but appeasing all the aggressive rhetoric emanating from the bowels of Beijing isn't an option.
Eric - February 6, 2010 11:17 PM
Of course the U.S. media don't criticize Saudi Arabia or Egypt—they're on "our side" against the terrorists. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that. And U.S. companies are not clamouring to get a piece of the Egyptian market, are they? So who cares what goes on in those countries?
More than enough hypocrisy to go around . . .
Dan - February 7, 2010 12:10 AM
With respect Dan, I think it's a little unfair to begin your post discussing an "email accusing me of costing Americans their jobs and going on and on about how China is terrible and anyone who has anything to do with China is terrible", and then try to counter that crazy attitude with an article criticizing the US policy towards China. It gives the impression that the present US policy is also based on the same type of attitude present in the email, which is hardly the case.
It's a great oversimplification to say the US is "antagonizing" China; there are real policy differences between the two countries, and as the US government follows its constitutional mission to promote the interests of America, and China does the same for its people, these differences will lead to some friction. But the alternative, simply ignoring these problems in the pursuit of short-term profits, is a recipe for long-term failure. Google did get hacked, China does maintain artificially low exchange rates, China does keep blocking efforts to hold Iran accountable, etc. These are real issues that affect a lot of people, and the US has the right and responsibility to try to address them.
As a side note, the author of the article you quote is the founder of the Discovery Institute, an organization famous for producing shoddy "scientific" papers questioning Evolution and supporting the teaching of Creationism in public schools. They are hugely disliked in the scientific community because they play off people's emotions to try to discredit good scientists and good scientific work. No, that doesn't automatically mean his opinion on China is wrong, but it's difficult to consider this guy a credible source.
Jay - February 7, 2010 4:39 AM
Sure bet the current spat is caused by this being an election year and Obama's Bush-like approval ratings. Since eloquent speeches only go so far, what better way to be seen to be tough on a Big Bad Evil China. And wouldn't you know, bad luck has it that China didn't play ball, no tainted milk, poisonous dog food or exploding toys. Where's bad Q.C. when you need it. In Japan, but that doesn't count! So, meet the orange idiot, sell some arms and blame exchange rates for the failure to make stuff the Chinese want to buy (and a damn big failure that is...) I've not seen any recent polling data, is the administrations' approval rating on the rebound yet?
As for Google, I am still wondering whether its sudden case of moral high ground didn't have anything to do with (ever so ironically) having been successfully sued for violating Chinese writers' copyrights with their ill-conceived book-scanning scheme...
In summary, the answer to the question of how many enemies the USA needs depends on whether and to what extent its leadership can pull its finger out and do something constructive, like lowering the jobless rate without the use of statistic tricks. Or maybe it is a lack of slightly overweight interns in the White House? Wasn't there a saying about "every country gets the enemies it deserves"?
Falen - February 7, 2010 5:05 AM
This is symptomatic of the US approach from energy policy to China policy: on and off, ah-hoc, no clear vision. US really needs to fundamentally define what China is to the US, and proceed to conduct a coherent policy that recognize all the conditions and the limitations. That would imply some give and take on certain things.
antagonizing versus appeasing - February 7, 2010 6:13 AM
I welcome the basic point of this post that China and America have much more in common and in mutual interest than most people acknowledge. Both are basically capitalist countries trying to promote the welfare of their people and both are threatened by extremists.
That being said, taking a stand on issues the US feels is important is not necessarily antagonist, even when China vehemently objects. Take the Dali Lama for example. France or US should be able to meet with him freely without the threat of temper tantrums. China has turned him into some bigger-than-life master conspirator/separatist who if allowed to return would cause unimaginable trouble. The reality is for years now he has taken a more pragmatic approach and acknowledges Tibet will never be independent. China has learned from the US the advantage of demonizing certain groups, like the FalunGong. Maybe some are extremists, but you don't see the US outlawing Islam because of extremists. There is a difference between appeasing a temper tantrum versus being antagonistic.
As for arm sells to Taiwan, people are mistaken to think if we stop selling arms to Taiwan, that all will be well. Why is the burden on the US to be deferential to China? Why not the other way around? Yes ZZX points out they own America, but it would only weaken America more to act beholden to China, unless you have already given up on America. Moreover, have you not read the enraged postings by Chinese netizens that say no matter what arms Taiwan has, when the day comes the sheer volume of Chinese will bury that island? It is like a parent who tells a successful child living on its own, if you ever turn 18 I will kill you! There is an undercurent of irrational victimized anger in China on being a historical victim of Western powers. It is similar to the irrational victimized populist anger in America.
Yes, we have a lot of mutual interests with China and I hate seeing US Senators score political points by demonizing China, but I don't see how expecting more of China and ourselves is necessarily antagonistic. Of course, there is a lot to be said for being sensitive on the timing and the tone.
anon this time - February 7, 2010 9:55 AM
First: China is not threatened by radical Islam on it's borders, or if so (which I kinda doubt) not nearly in the same manner that *some* western nations are. I know only a little about the author of that article, but the Muslims with whom China shares the overwhelming majority of any grievance are squarely within China's borders, aren't they? Moreover, China borders so many nations, and in such remote areas, I am sure that were China a big target of Islamic terrorists, we'd all know a lot more about it by now.
That was a bizarre and poorly written article, full of scare-tactics and fear mongering. Substitute "China" for some of the other countries named in it and it was the kind of article that used to appear often about China. Saying China released "a billion" people from penury and oppression... as though China had slipped across the border into a neighboring country and done this. Perhaps he chould have more honestly said "the authorities in China relaxed their penury and oppression"? I won't quibble with the "billion" part for now.
This was my fear when the WSJ was purchased by Murdoch: the reportage typical at his other papers would start sprouting here.
I don't think there is any "country" whose values include wanting to kill Americans. In Afganistan, there are those (in no small number) who despise the Taliban and Al Qaeda, who in turn aren't the same thing. Does anyone believe that all Iranians or Afganis want all Americans dead? Or all Pakistanis? I have known many Iranians and Pakistanis who wish nothing more than to live a bland American life here, and yet they are decidedly part and parcel of their respective communities, and full-on "Muslim".
I wish more Americans would make more of an effort to see Islam and Muslims/Muslim countries with the same nuances that we are beginning to see China. As a regular reader of your blog for several years, I have noticed that in the past year or so you have been given over to less than persuasive arguments concerning Muslim countries or Islam, and on topics that you would similarly quickly discount were they concerning China.
I am not a big fan of trading one scary nation for another, or a group of nations. As a nation (I'm American) we've been down this road before, and it's wrong in myriad ways. None of this is to suggest that very real and serious problems don't exist, but I must say that one man's Islamic foe is very often another man's yellow menace. That may seem ridiculous to suggest here on a blog with a lot of people who are well-versed in "China stuff", but I see, read and hear it loudly on a daily basis. I find a creeping fear of Islam as irrational as I do one of China.
When you ask is it racism? Too controversial? I would say that we really seem hell bent on establishing and maintaining a large state of fear in this country. Luckily for us, there are other countries that want the same thing, so we don't have dance to solo. More than racism, I wonder if we aren't on a religious crusade of sorts against Islam. In this tabloid age, "controversial" barely exists anymore, so I don't think it's that.
Maybe I'm daft, but I am a lot less threatened by Islamic terrorists (who have been reduced to clumsy underwear and shoe bombs by maladjusted young men) than I am by articulate, influential men like Gilder, who in addition to writing less than convincing articles for the WSJ, actively promotes the teaching of intelligent design while actively teaching against the theory of evolution. So when I see that a man who on one hand wants intelligent design taught in schools (and evolution debunked) while on the other hand posits that Muslims are full-on scary, I have to wonder about a veiled religious crusade... and not the one being waged by Al Qaeda.
Just my two cents in attempting to (somewhat) address your question without writing too many words, which is often tempting in the blogosphere. Pardon me if I have spoken out of turn.
casual observer - February 7, 2010 10:03 AM
Well, only China is strategically capable of challenging the US, and China does actually antagonize the US and its allies through Hezbollah and Iran (who is the only country blocking UN sanctions against Iran?).
China has made its goals clear, control the Pacific Ocean out to the Aleutians, the Hawaiian Islands and Polynesia, including Australia. And China has 20,000 troops with supporting armor, artillery and air power massed on India's Anurachal Pradesh border, claiming it as "south Tibet". And for what reason? Both sides are nuclear powers.
hanmeng - February 7, 2010 12:56 PM
"...China, like the U.S., is so heavily dependent on Taiwanese manufacturing skills and so intertwined with Taiwan's industry that China's military threat to the island is mostly theater."
I hope Gilder is right, but governments don't always act in their own self-interest: Gilder himself acknowledges that the Chinese are "needlessly aggressive" towards Taiwan.
The way the Chinese government is always banging the drum about Taiwan being a part of China is a concern to anyone who believes a democratic government is a good thing.
Chalmers Wood - February 7, 2010 7:04 PM
Hang in there Dan. And thank you for handling the above Hemulen types. SOMEONE’S gotta keep them on the farm and busy. So, what’s the difference between the Vietnam War and this arms sales to Taiwan? Not much. Both were/are motivational jobs programs…,(supported & funded by Hemulens’ politics?) What’s the difference between a Chinese bank and a French bank in Paris? Someone in the Chinese bank will speak English. Let us not, for the moment, discuss Chinese vs. American banks.
Dan - February 7, 2010 8:05 PM
ZZX,
Yes, the US economy is tied in with China, but that is not really the reason why I think it does not make sense for us to be antagonizing them. I think that we have bigger and more important fish to fry and the US can no longer control the entire world (to the extent we ever could).
Dan - February 7, 2010 8:11 PM
I really do not think the actual number matters, though that number may or may not be off the mark. And the fact that you perservate on that really makes me wonder....
The point of the article, and on which I agree, is that the US and China should be making common cause with a common enemy.
And that common enemy is NOT Islam or Muslims, as some below have hinted. The US should be making common cause with Muslim countries like Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, etc. The threat is not Islam or Muslims, it is Islamic Terrorists and the nations that support them.
And to the commenter who seems to think I have trouble telling the difference, let me make very clear that I do not as I used to live in an Islamic country, Turkey, went to high school there, still have many good friends there, and still count Istanbul as one of my favorite cities in the world and a city to which I love going. All I am saying is that at this moment in history, the real enemies of the US are those who have and continue trying to kill us and those are the Islamic terrorists and it is against those that we should be making common cause.
Dan - February 7, 2010 8:14 PM
Silly,
You are silly. I hate to tell you this, but even our closest allies and those with whom we are truly "friends" and those who have no real desire to do the US ill spy on us like crazy. Only when they get caught, it's not that big a deal. But France, Britain, Israel, and even Canada, have all been caught and I assume all of them (and many others) still do it all the time.
Why must China be our enemy? Because they are competing with us economically? I don't blame China (or any other country) a bit for that and I am confident the US will continue to do just fine on that score anyway, unless too many people become convinced that the way for us to succeed is by seeking to take others down.
Dan - February 7, 2010 8:16 PM
theAdmiral,
I am not opposed to the US putting heat on oppressive countries, but in choosing those countries we must consider both the level of oppression and the strategic importance.
Dan - February 7, 2010 8:17 PM
Silly (ii),
Your idea sounds rather silly to me.
Dan - February 7, 2010 8:29 PM
Joe,
I think it is you who are confused.
1. I never said "we are" Egypt and the UAE. I merely said that if the US can deal with countries like those which treat so many of their own population so horribly, than why can we not do the same with China, which treats most of its population much better and which is strategically important? I never said that we should ignore how China acts. I never said that because I do not believe it. However, at the same time, I think if we are going to go after China for acting undemocratically, then if we are to be viewed with any credibility, we really do need to say something about countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc., and we pretty much don't. Do you actually disagree with me on the above? Does anyone?
As a patriot, I believe in preserving the rights outlined in our constitution for those in the United States. But as much as I revere the US constitution (and I most certainly do), I do not for a moment believe it should be extended worldwide and your suggestion that it should is the height of arrogance and it makes me wonder if you have ever left the United States or read the constitution of any other country. I love our constitution and I think it fits us to a T, but I also think there are other countries who are quite happy with their own constitutions and who are we to tell them otherwise? Your comment that I, "as a patriot ... should believe in preserving the rights outlined in our constitution to all" is strange. Did you really mean it?
And though I agree with you that we should not judge other countries simply on whether they want to kill us or not and that we should take into consideration things like "freedom and justice," I do think whether a country wants our destruction ought to take precedence. Also, would you agree then that under your criteria, we should end all relations with Egypt and Saudi Arabia? Actually, as horrible as those two countries are on freedom and justice, I do not think we should because I actually believe that we can have more influence on their changing by not ending relations.
You say you would like to see from me where I got my virus statistics, but I never mentioned anything about viruses so I have no idea what you are even talking about.
Dan - February 7, 2010 8:30 PM
theAdmiral,
Those statistics on alcohol probably reflect what goes to the enclaves of Westerners in Saudi Arabia who are there in the oil industry and live apart from the native population. I had a good friend who grew up in an Aramco village and he told me there was absolutely nothing to do there but drink.
Dan - February 7, 2010 8:33 PM
Panji Kelana,
It is not a master slave relationship, but the US does have values that are still admired by the world and there is no reason why we should not selectively seek to assist other countries in achieving realization of those values.
Dan - February 7, 2010 8:37 PM
Phil Hand,
That's right, attack where this guy comes from, rather than the thrust of the article itself. I personally think creationism has no place in our schools, but that is absolutely not the issue here and you know it.
I don't really disagree with you on your factual recounting, but you do not address at all the things that have really set China off and the poor timing of those things. So should we just write China off as "enemy" right now or should we work with them and do a little quid pro quo to get them to do things that matter most, like get them to support us on sanctions against Iran. I am always telling my kids to "prioritize" and I think US diplomacy needs to do the same thing because our ability to do everything all the time is no more.
Dan - February 7, 2010 8:39 PM
Stuart,
I am not calling for appeasement on every issue or even overall. I am calling for seeking to establish a cooperative relationship on the big issues that really matter and not getting bogged down on side issues that become big issues in an effort to play politics. Both the US and China are guilty of this and I blame both parties in the US for this.
Dan - February 7, 2010 8:41 PM
Eric,
I agree, but I will even say that I can live with a bit of hypocrisy, and so I can understand our going after Iran for killing its own people in the streets while completely ignoring it when Egypt or Saudi Arabia do the exact same thing, but what I do not understand our going after countries when it will be ineffective and against our own best interest to do so.
Dan - February 7, 2010 8:45 PM
Dan,
I do think the US policy on China is "based on the same type of attitude present in the email, which is hardly the case." I firmly believe that domestic politics is playing our hand on China and it drives me crazy. And again, I fault both parties for this politicizing of our foreign policy and I find it immensely troubling.
Of course there are real policy differences between China and the US, but I also think we have gone out of our way to antagonize China of late and I think those decisions have been made to play to a domestic audience, rather than out of some grand international political scheme.
You accuse me of oversimplifying but then you do even worse by trying to fault the points made in the article by going after the individual who wrote it.
Dan - February 7, 2010 8:47 PM
Jay,
I don't disagree though I want to note again that I blame both parties for politicizing our international politics.
Dan - February 7, 2010 8:48 PM
Falen,
I agree. The US needs to prioritize and it needs to formulate its foreign policy based on what is good for the country, not what is good for the next election. Once again, though, I state that I blame both parties for having so politicized our foreign policy.
Dan - February 7, 2010 9:06 PM
antagonizing versus appeasing,
I like your first paragraph. Nicely said.
And I pretty much agree with the rest of your thoughtful comment as well.
Dan - February 7, 2010 9:14 PM
anon this time,
You are daft if you believe you see the downfall of the WSJ based on one guest column and if you are more worried by the guy who wrote this article than by the Islamic extremists who have engaged in about 15,000 terrorist attacks (that involve attempts to end human life) since 9/11.
I also resent your gross oversimplification of my views in an attempt to paint me as anti-Islamic, which I most assuredly am not. I have not written anything remotely anti-Islam, nor will I ever. I lived in a Muslim country (Turkey) and attended school there and I still have many friends there and I seek to return there whenever I can. I point this out because I have absolutely no beef with countries like Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, etc. nor with the huge swath of Muslims in countries like Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, etc., who want nothing more than what most of us want, which is economic security, freedom, and what is best for our children.
My beef is with Islamic extremists (or anyone else) who preach and practice death/terrorism and while I wish I lived in your dream world where that sort of thing is less scary than someone who writes a post calling for the US to tone down its politicized rhetoric about China, I am sorry but I cannot.
You are not out of line for commenting (I always welcome sincere comments that disagree with me) and I do truly appreciate your speaking out.
Dan - February 7, 2010 9:16 PM
Casual observer,
And that's my point. Don't you think if the US were to bend a bit on something important to China, China would bend a bit on something important to us, like Iran? I think we could achieve this and I think it ought to be our priority.
Dan - February 7, 2010 9:17 PM
hanmeng,
You make a really good point on how countries do not always act in their own self-interest. in that they sometimes do stupid things.
Dan - February 7, 2010 9:19 PM
Chalmers Wood,
I agree with you if you are saying electioneering plays a big part. You have lost me on the China/France bank thing. Please explain.
Jay - February 8, 2010 12:47 AM
Dan,
Good thing you don't have to repeat yourself this fine Monday Morning:)
I like the concept of (not wanting them) "politicizing [..] politics". Has a nice ring to it.
But they all do it. China could also do with a change in PR consultants (is Aaron Sorkin still in-between jobs? I would watch "the East Wing" with maybe Jacky Chan playing a tightly scripted Party Chairman).
Luckily, as with any stink, sooner or later it will blow over. Question is what direction the next one comes wafting from.
FOARP - February 8, 2010 5:55 AM
I have no doubt that antagonising China is a bad idea, especially when it results in a negligible positive outcome. Internet censorship has, in the main part, been one area where little or nothing has been achieved thus far through criticism. That said, on the issue of Taiwan, the arm-sales ban, and Tibet, I cannot see how anyone could rationally think there is any room for compromise. I am not misty-eyed about the Dalai Lama, but he remains the representative in exile of an oppressed people and avoiding him would send a treacherous message. Taiwan is a free and democratic society, but this is only guaranteed so long as it is equipped to defend itself and has the assurance of US backing - compromise here would be betrayal of the first order. Finally, the ban on arms sales is just good common sense - the west does not need China as an enemy, but it will never be anything but an ally of convenience as long it remains a dictatorship.
anon this time - February 8, 2010 8:24 AM
I must stand by my comments on the level of reporting at the WSJ, which I have read regularly for a very long time. I used this article as an example of a larger trend, sorry if I didn't make that clear. The WSJ is becoming decidely partisan and political in tone, and the level of reporting has suffered. Now, one could say that there is nothing wrong with partisan and political writing, but lately they have catered to the extremists on the right, tea bag conspiracy theorists, etc. There was nothing in the WSJ pre-Murdoch of similar tenor.
As to the rest, you have linked to sites and authors that I find to be anti Muslim, including China Confidential this fellow's article. I find no merit in this sort of writing and my mentioning of the shoe and undie bombers was an allusion to the clumsy and inept methods that these terrorists now deploy, compared to the highly polished methods that those responsible for policies that encourage and engage this sort of thing employ. For me, there is some currency in the idea that though we are getting better at detecting and preventing these sorts from carrying out their acts, and that their acts don't have any of the levels of sophistication/planning that marked earlier attempts, we have ratcheted up the terror level so high that every shadow now looms large.
When younger I spent a good deal of my time living outside the country, and in places where terrorists have operated on a much larger and more continuous scale. I see the same mistake being repeated here that I saw in other places, and I do believe that some people who purport to be "defending our freedom" are actually cloaking religious zealotry in lofty, patriotic talk.
I just would like for us all to give our sources and info a better once over...
Thanks for your reasoned reply.
John H - February 8, 2010 2:12 PM
Dan, you are to be commended for casting pearls before the populace. Reason and moderation and other Aristotelian values are not for everyone.
The extremist rantings in response to your position very much remind me of what happened in the period preceding World War I. There was a major shift in the balance of power, and all the key European players waited with anticipation and even pleasure the outbreak of war. When it happened, there was immense relief. Many groups and governments expected the troops would be home by Christmas 1914. The warmongers were pleased as it was their fondest wish. By the time of Armistice 1918, some 9 million young men were dead. Doubtless most of the rabid flock here is well over draftable age, so there's no danger to them there.
Of course, world war is not likely to take place on those terms as clearly the Chinese are very small potatoes in that department. However, the antagonism that this administration has generated will have many 'unintended' consequences, including the possibility of something completely unforeseen. What? I would wager chem-bio warfare. It won't be started by China, but there is a greater chance that the US would initiate (remember the anthrax killings, featuring weapons-grade anthrax clearly from US labs has never been solved). Even more likely, it will come from a direction that will take advantage of the disruptive and uncooperative global environment that is widening in the US, and that is stoked by the paranoia that is easy to breed in this multicultural environment which too easily disguises the actual levels of hostility that are banned to subterfuge under a policy of political correctness. I would much rather have open racial hostility on the part of the posters to this site -- than the specious arguments that are used to impel a pleasant prospect (to them) of global conflagration. Because, underneath the somewhat tranquil surface of the US, there is seething American hostility which could very well be the impetus to the unexpected.
Richard - February 8, 2010 7:32 PM
Current anti-China resentment in the U.S. is not driven by specific policy problems. Arms sales to Taiwan, censorship, human rights, Tibet...none of these are new. These same tensions have characterized the Sino-U.S. relationship for decades and will not change overnight.
What has changed? China's relative power in the world has increased substantially in a short period of time, primarily due to the global economic recession. With the U.S. in some state of decline (of course, the extent of decline is arguable) and the Chinese economy appearing to many to be unflappable (also debatable), many in the U.S. are starting to wake up to the fact that China is a serious global player but is not a democracy, is not particularly interested in Western political ideals, and like most major powers, will generally pursue China's self-interest above all else.
At the same time, Americans are frustrated by our own sluggish economy and stalled political process, while China appears to be able to engineer growth without any need to bother with political consensus. America is scared and jealous of Chinese ascendancy and is no longer secure in the belief in American supremacy, which was essential American dogma only a decade ago.
In short, anti-China feelings, while firmly rooted in some genuine concerns, has much more to do with the current American psychology than with any specific actions taken by China.
Joe - February 8, 2010 9:19 PM
You said "China originates fewer viruses and scams than does the U.S."
Don Clarke - February 9, 2010 12:24 AM
This article cannot be taken seriously. Look at absurd premise stated in the very first sentence: that US foreign policy is actually nicer to Iran and Hamas than it is to China. Obama did not just make a state visit to Iran or the Gaza Strip, and the US is not making noises about bombing China. And it goes downhill from there. For example, "with millions of Islamists on its borders and within them, China is nearly as threatened by radical Islam as we are." What does Gilder mean by "Islamists" - Muslims? So all Muslims are radicals? In fact, radical is just what China's Muslims are not - at least not yet. Or the idea that because Taiwanese invest a lot of money in China, they must be eager to be ruled by the CCP. The Brits and the Canadians invest a lot in the US, but I don't think they want to join it. (Not at least as long as people like Gilder command serious attention in policy circles.) There are plenty of people who have serious, well-informed things to say about China; why waste time on this silliness?
eflipper - February 10, 2010 9:59 AM
@Richard, that was a quote from the WSJ, and it is probably true because in china it really is illegal to run internet scams. You can get prosecuted for it severely. U.S... not so much.. the "spam king" has some great book deals coming out and great jobs lined up for him.
Dan - February 10, 2010 9:59 PM
Jay,
Amen, brother.
Dan - February 10, 2010 10:00 PM
FOARP,
I would much prefer to have China as an ally of convenience than not an ally at all. We need to choose our battles.
Dan - February 10, 2010 10:01 PM
Falen,
Exactly.
Dan - February 10, 2010 10:07 PM
anon this time,
The WSJ's reporting has fallen a tiny notch and I think that is mostly because they have bolstered their coverage by bringing on new people. Having said this, its reporting is so head and shoulders above any other newspaper that it isn't even funny. There are certain things I will not believe until I see it in either the WSJ or the FT.
I think your claim that they are catering to the right wing is ridiculous. I don't see them "catering" to anyone in their reporting.
That's great, so every site I've linked to you find to be anti-Muslim. I find that to be a complete crock. I'm sorry, but writing about the threat of Islamic extremism is not anti-Muslim.
I agree with you that some who claim to be "'defending our freedom' are actually cloaking religious zealotry in lofty, patriotic talk" but that does not mean there isn't a threat and that seems to be what you are saying. Since 9/11 there have been more than 15,000 acts of terrorism by Islamic extremists and so, yes, that does concern me.
Dan - February 10, 2010 10:10 PM
John H,
Thanks for your kudos, but I do not share your fear of the Obama administration going off and starting a stupid war.
Dan - February 10, 2010 10:12 PM
Richard,
Sad to say, but I mostly agree with you. The US view of China (and the uber hostility as compared with countries that abuse human rights far worse) is more a reflection of China's rising role in the world than of anything else.
Dan - February 10, 2010 10:23 PM
Joe,
I didn't say that, the writer of this article said that. True or not, what does that have to do with the point of my post?
Dan - February 10, 2010 10:39 PM
Don,
1. This article does NOT say that US foreign policy is actually nicer to Iran and Hamas than it is to China," as you claim. What it says is that we are seeking to appease Iran and Hamas and seeking to antagonize China and there is some truth to that.
Your acting as though it is crazy to say there are millions of Islamists on China's borders is itself crazy. First off, I do not like the word Islamist so I will replace it with Islamic extremists, but seeing as how China borders both Pakistan and Afghanistan, I certainly do not think it crazy to say China borders millions of Islamic extremists. But even if it didn't the whole point of the article (and one you make no effort to refute) is that both the US and China (and I will throw in Russia) face problems from Islamic extremists.
I did not see this article saying "that because Taiwanese invest a lot of money in China, they must be eager to be ruled by the CCP," but certainly if it did say that, that would be ridiculous.
Why don't you address the central point of the article which is that the US should be making common cause with China where possible or is that idea just completely inimical to you?
Dan - February 10, 2010 10:39 PM
eflipper,
You can get prosecuted for it severely, but you also can get away with it.
dpz - February 15, 2010 10:43 AM
Great post. I agree with you that we need to formulate a coherent strategy that actually prioritizes and focuses on the big picture.