James Mann has authored a book entitled The China Fantasy: How Our Leaders Explain Away Chinese Repression, in which he examines our foreign policy towards China, and what it could or should be. BTW, I don’t think he’s a conservative, noting his previous book Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet.
You can hear him talk about the subject at the University Channel Podcast. In the talk, he discusses three possible scenarios for China’s future, given our current approach, which is to FAIL to demand human rights reforms, hoping economic trade will change China. He mentions that this approach to Russia really didn’t work, and today they are just as oppressive as before.
- Soothing – Human rights improvements will come according to our current policy, buoyed by economic prosperity
- Upheaval – something’s gonna blow – banking system problems, labor strikes (See The Coming Collapse of China as an example of this argument)
- WYSIWYG – nothing will change in government, even if economics have changed (Mann thinks this is the most probable outcome)
I hate to be defeatist about this sort of thing, but frankly I see WYSIWYG as the most realistic scenario. This is not just tied to the political realities within China, but also the economic realities of the United States’ massive deficit spending over the last 8 years under Bush.
How is that problematic and how does that even relate to the China thing? Well, you see ladies and gentlemen someone has to buy our bonds on the open market, which in turn finances the government when we spend our giant Optimus American Express Card to pay for things at the Federal Level. Currently, China is the single largest foreign country to hold our Treasury Bonds that finances our Federal Government.
So, you see. The United States really has little or no influence in this situation. Any nation that holds our debt on this scale, can sell it en-masse on the open market or demand immediate repayment. Since the United States does not remotely have enough hard currency (Gold) to cover this, such a move would literally destroy 225 years of the US’ ability to claim “Full Faith in Credit” in this country and in the international market.
Realistically, would this happen? No. However, if a country such as China with this kind of monetary hold on the United States was pushed hard enough, it most certainly would make moves in that direction. That would put the US back in its place thanks to our debt.
So, China will be the status quo when it comes to Human Rights and the “Moral Majority” that is the United States will not do anything about it except pay lip service to the injustice of the situation on the Ground.
This is one of the many reasons (without getting into an Economic debate on Trickle Down Economics and the Laugher Curve) the extreme dangers of Deficit Spending at the scale we have been doing as of late is so deadly to the United States, our interests, and our ability to really lean on countries economically to force social change. We cannot do it with really large players.
– Silver
In not a student of economics but I too can see the analogy of the trade deficit to a credit card with China as the loan company. It makes our trade interests subordinate to theirs. Not a good situation. The interest is pretty sick too. I can’t help but to leave with a parting shot to the Republicans… Thanks for the crazy spending W!
Well Silver, the author agrees with you, but he’s really not making a comment on deficit spending at all, but on our soft approach to China, that is, by refusing more stern economic and political sanctions, and relying only on the liberalization of their economy, he says that human rights abuses, such as the killing of dissidents and prisoners for the human organ transplant market, will not change.
..but he’s really not making a comment on deficit spending at all, but on our soft approach to China
Seeker, I know. Don’t be so obtuse. ;D
The natural progression in the authors argument is what can the United States do to force change. So, the argument I presented is a natural progression and very valid.
– Silver
I’m not being obtuse, stop being insulting or I’ll have to come over there and bring the smack down. I missed the connection – did you spell it out? I felt like you might be ignoring or missing the author’s purposes, that’s all.
stop being insulting or I’ll have to come over there and bring the smack down. I missed the connection
Insulting? I think I hit a scab or something because you are being over sensitive. Coming over here to for a smack down would involve you either walking or driving, which requires more energy than you would be willing to expend.
I missed the connection – did you spell it out?
Seeker read it again. I was very clear in spelling it out. You just missed it in your attempt to speed read again.
– Silver