The U.S. and China, the two largest economiesy in the world, are obviously at odds today. The world mass media controlled largely by the American conglomerates devotes enormous space to covering news about the two nations' domestic and foreign affairs, especially on their economic activities. The U.S. has been the number one economy in the world since 1890 and has become the only super power in the world 100 years later by winning the Ccold Wwar against the Soviet Union (which was collapsed in 1989-1991). The U.S. has maintained to be the world's number one economy toill this day.
China, on the other hand, had 110 years (1839-1949) treacherous path from first being invaded by the British (1839-1842 Opium war) and later by other foreign powers, to overturning a decaying dynasty (1911 establishing the Republic of China, ROC) under foreign oppression, to fighting against the Japanese invasion and WW II (1931-1945), to post WW II internal war (1949 establishing People's Republic of China, PRC). China is separated into two parts (PRC in mainland and ROC in Taiwan), and each part has struggled to develop its economy. The U.S. switched its recognition of China from ROC to PRC on January 1, 1979, when China's per capita GDPD was only $156, one of the world's poorest countriesy. Then China worked hard in its economic development with GDP rapidly growing, passing Italy in 2000, France in 2005, the UK in 2006, and Japan and Germany in 2010 gradually becoming the world manufacturers.
Today. China's GPD is the second largest in the world about 70% of that of the U.S. The two countries have mutual dependency in trade and many domains such as finance, research and technology, healthcare and medicine, etc., as well as intertwined cultural and foreign relations. NIt is naturally, that the U.S. feels the pressure that China is advancing rapidly. However, it is surprising that the U.S. has adopted a hostile attitude towards the rise of China or its effort to return to glory since China was the world's largest economy in the early 19th century (six times of Britain's in 1820). When the U.S. was surpassing the European powers in GDP, they would feel the pressure as well, but they either accepted the competition gracefully or waged war. Most European powers including the superpower then Britain essentially accepted the rise of the U.S. The short U.S.-Spain war could have been avoided and its outcome could have been either way.
In today's nuclear era, a war between two nuclear powers definitely would have no winner. So, why shouldn't the U.S. accept China's rise as a competition and gracefully deal with it like the UK and France had accepted the rise of the U.S.? The U.S. was expanding its influence in the world and taking the stand of helping Cuba and the Philippines to gain independence from colonial power, namely Spain. The rising U.S.
was waving a flag of justice, but in reality, extending its influence in America and the Pacific. The rising China today is also waving a flag of justice, demanding rights of independence and free economic development gaining influence in the world, especially in Africa and Asia. As a superpower, why can't the U.S. accept the rise of China gracefully as the European powers did to the U.S. a century and a half ago?
In the 21st century, the U.S. has shifted its strategy and China policy from engagement to hostility, targeting China as a competitor on the surface but an enemy in reality. This can be seen from the following developments: (1) Diplomacy: Increasingly at odds with China in the UN on international affairs. (2) Taiwan: Gradually retracting from the one-China policy and taking positions to make Taiwan resisting unification and buying US arms for war. (3) Island-Chain Defense: Increasing tension in the Pacific with military exercises and enhanced weapons installation. (4) South China Sea: Increasing naval presence in the name of freedom of navigation threatening commerce shipping lane to China. (5) Alliances: creating military alliances against China, AUKUS, QUAD+, and Indo-Pacific Alliance. (6) Trade: Applying tariffs and limits on Chinese imports even at the expense of American consumers benefits across thousands of trade items. A Prominent example is , Huawei communication products. (7) Sanctions: technology sanctions across several domains especially in the semiconductor industry. (8) Discrimination against Chinese Americans: Launching discriminating policies and measures against Chinese scholars and researchers in the U.S. such as the China Initiative program prosecuting hundreds of Chinese scientists. (9) Media: All-out media war against China with disinformation and propaganda smearing China with negative news with the intent to destabilizeing the Chinese government.
In the media, constantly one finds stories about China collapsing, citing scenarios such as food shortage, concentration camps, genocide, natural disasters, housing bubble collapse, and the latest over-capacity and over-production damaging the world economy, all to bashwith the purpose of bashing China, its government and the Chinese Communist party, CCP. These false narratives not only appear in mass media, they are also appearing in think tank publications. It appears that if one does not follow a politically correct narrative, one can not get anything published. Recently, the author came across an article in Foreign Affairs (August 6, 2024), 'China's Real Economic Crisis – Why Beijing Won't Give Up on a Failing Model', authored by Zongyuan Zoe Liu, a research fellow for China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. The author's suggestion in the conclusion is very reasonable, but its long-winded explanation to justify that the existence of overcapacity or overproduction is due to the CCP's long-term economic strategy favoring industrial production over all else is too simplistic and inconsistent with China's obvious success in its economic development through state planning over the past four decades. (West governments spent money on wars and the Chinese government spent money on infrastructure and industry production creating employment!)
Overcapacity or overproduction is not a one-sided problem. When the world economy is down, and demands are down, China will not be so stupid to in producinge more goods than potential markets ever needed. The Western governments should focus on pumping up their economies rather than worry about oversupplies which depress prices. Liu has said some right words, “Western leaders and policymakers would do well to understand the deeper forces driving China’s overcapacity (*This author believes that it is to create or maintain employment!) and make sure that their own policies are not making it worse. Rather than seeking to further isolate China, the West should take steps to keep Beijing firmly within the global trading system (This author believes that WTO must be supported!), using the incentives of the global market to steer China toward more balanced growth and less heavy-handed industrial policies.” Liu's last words “If Washington sticks to its current path and continues to head toward a trade war, it may inadvertently cause Beijing to double down on the industrial policies that are causing overcapacity in the first place. In the long run, this would be as bad for the West as it would be for China.” (This author believes that China will not pursue 100% self-sufficiency if the West removes its sanction practices!)
The U.S. and China, the two largest economiesy in the world, are obviously at odds today. The world mass media controlled largely by the American conglomerates devotes enormous space to covering news about the two nations' domestic and foreign affairs, especially on their economic activities. The U.S. has been the number one economy in the world since 1890 and has become the only super power in the world 100 years later by winning the Ccold Wwar against the Soviet Union (which was collapsed in 1989-1991). The U.S. has maintained to be the world's number one economy toill this day.
China, on the other hand, had 110 years (1839-1949) treacherous path from first being invaded by the British (1839-1842 Opium war) and later by other foreign powers, to overturning a decaying dynasty (1911 establishing the Republic of China, ROC) under foreign oppression, to fighting against the Japanese invasion and WW II (1931-1945), to post WW II internal war (1949 establishing People's Republic of China, PRC). China is separated into two parts (PRC in mainland and ROC in Taiwan), and each part has struggled to develop its economy. The U.S. switched its recognition of China from ROC to PRC on January 1, 1979, when China's per capita GDPD was only $156, one of the world's poorest countriesy. Then China worked hard in its economic development with GDP rapidly growing, passing Italy in 2000, France in 2005, the UK in 2006, and Japan and Germany in 2010 gradually becoming the world manufacturers.
Today. China's GPD is the second largest in the world about 70% of that of the U.S. The two countries have mutual dependency in trade and many domains such as finance, research and technology, healthcare and medicine, etc., as well as intertwined cultural and foreign relations. NIt is naturally, that the U.S. feels the pressure that China is advancing rapidly. However, it is surprising that the U.S. has adopted a hostile attitude towards the rise of China or its effort to return to glory since China was the world's largest economy in the early 19th century (six times of Britain's in 1820). When the U.S. was surpassing the European powers in GDP, they would feel the pressure as well, but they either accepted the competition gracefully or waged war. Most European powers including the superpower then Britain essentially accepted the rise of the U.S. The short U.S.-Spain war could have been avoided and its outcome could have been either way.
In today's nuclear era, a war between two nuclear powers definitely would have no winner. So, why shouldn't the U.S. accept China's rise as a competition and gracefully deal with it like the UK and France had accepted the rise of the U.S.? The U.S. was expanding its influence in the world and taking the stand of helping Cuba and the Philippines to gain independence from colonial power, namely Spain. The rising U.S.
was waving a flag of justice, but in reality, extending its influence in America and the Pacific. The rising China today is also waving a flag of justice, demanding rights of independence and free economic development gaining influence in the world, especially in Africa and Asia. As a superpower, why can't the U.S. accept the rise of China gracefully as the European powers did to the U.S. a century and a half ago?
In the 21st century, the U.S. has shifted its strategy and China policy from engagement to hostility, targeting China as a competitor on the surface but an enemy in reality. This can be seen from the following developments: (1) Diplomacy: Increasingly at odds with China in the UN on international affairs. (2) Taiwan: Gradually retracting from the one-China policy and taking positions to make Taiwan resisting unification and buying US arms for war. (3) Island-Chain Defense: Increasing tension in the Pacific with military exercises and enhanced weapons installation. (4) South China Sea: Increasing naval presence in the name of freedom of navigation threatening commerce shipping lane to China. (5) Alliances: creating military alliances against China, AUKUS, QUAD+, and Indo-Pacific Alliance. (6) Trade: Applying tariffs and limits on Chinese imports even at the expense of American consumers benefits across thousands of trade items. A Prominent example is , Huawei communication products. (7) Sanctions: technology sanctions across several domains especially in the semiconductor industry. (8) Discrimination against Chinese Americans: Launching discriminating policies and measures against Chinese scholars and researchers in the U.S. such as the China Initiative program prosecuting hundreds of Chinese scientists. (9) Media: All-out media war against China with disinformation and propaganda smearing China with negative news with the intent to destabilizeing the Chinese government.
In the media, constantly one finds stories about China collapsing, citing scenarios such as food shortage, concentration camps, genocide, natural disasters, housing bubble collapse, and the latest over-capacity and over-production damaging the world economy, all to bashwith the purpose of bashing China, its government and the Chinese Communist party, CCP. These false narratives not only appear in mass media, they are also appearing in think tank publications. It appears that if one does not follow a politically correct narrative, one can not get anything published. Recently, the author came across an article in Foreign Affairs (August 6, 2024), 'China's Real Economic Crisis – Why Beijing Won't Give Up on a Failing Model', authored by Zongyuan Zoe Liu, a research fellow for China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. The author's suggestion in the conclusion is very reasonable, but its long-winded explanation to justify that the existence of overcapacity or overproduction is due to the CCP's long-term economic strategy favoring industrial production over all else is too simplistic and inconsistent with China's obvious success in its economic development through state planning over the past four decades. (West governments spent money on wars and the Chinese government spent money on infrastructure and industry production creating employment!)
Overcapacity or overproduction is not a one-sided problem. When the world economy is down, and demands are down, China will not be so stupid to in producinge more goods than potential markets ever needed. The Western governments should focus on pumping up their economies rather than worry about oversupplies which depress prices. Liu has said some right words, “Western leaders and policymakers would do well to understand the deeper forces driving China’s overcapacity (*This author believes that it is to create or maintain employment!) and make sure that their own policies are not making it worse. Rather than seeking to further isolate China, the West should take steps to keep Beijing firmly within the global trading system (This author believes that WTO must be supported!), using the incentives of the global market to steer China toward more balanced growth and less heavy-handed industrial policies.” Liu's last words “If Washington sticks to its current path and continues to head toward a trade war, it may inadvertently cause Beijing to double down on the industrial policies that are causing overcapacity in the first place. In the long run, this would be as bad for the West as it would be for China.” (This author believes that China will not pursue 100% self-sufficiency if the West removes its sanction practices!)
RSS Feed