> but I don't think they have the appetite to break the status quo this eagerly.
Mainly they don't have the strength to break the status quo. Plus they don't want to jeopardise access to such a large market. It's a Faustian bargain they're beginning to regret.
China is going to rise, this cannot and should not be prevented. But allowing them to rise at your own country's expense is folly. America gets this.
Also US can weather itself the best if the status quo is broken, because it is currently on top. Other countries won't be so lucky.
Trump's actions feel dramatic, but mainly on the magnitude and fast aggression. Something is due to happen and the world needs to adapt to that new normal.
It's far simpler than that. In order to look good domestically Trump needs a foe, and China conveniently provides that foe. They're a credible threat, they are not his Russian buddies and the US is to a large extent dependent on them.
On top of that I suspect that when the last stone is overturned we will find a bunch of ways in which the US president and his cronies profited from the wild gyrations of the stock market as a result of the trade war.
No matter who's in charge in each moment, the West should try to convince China that it must transition to a political system like ours if they want to keep dealing with us.
Allowing China to maintain its tyrannic regime is extremely dangerous for everybody in the long run.
The change doesn't need to be abrupt and it's possible to make some assurances for people currently in power.
"Enforced" is not the word I was looking for. More like showing the ruling class that it's in their own interest to gradually apply some changes. There are many obstacles for such a strategy. But even if there isn't a clear path, there needs to be some factors in place for somebody inside to invent that path. If nothing is ever done, nothing will change.
That's the theory. The practice is the rulers will use the sanctions to prove to their people that the outside world is mean and evil and their only hope lies in their dear leaders.
China never obeyed the rules, so the rest of the world has a choice: continue to play by the old rules at a disadvantage to a cheating China, accept the new rules China has been playing by, or isolate China until they start playing by the old rules.
You should look up WTO statistics sometimes. Who has substantially more complaints from the global trade community [1]? Who imposes the highest number of protectionism policies [2]? Hint: it's not China. There's no reason to believe USTR reporting, or much government reporting when it comes to geopolitics to be unbiased. Especially under this administration. During a tradewar no less. This isn't about obeying the rules. It's about the reigning cheater stacking the deck against an upcoming cheater while pretending their own hands are clean. China's ascension to WTO was inevitable despite US being one of the last hold outs [3]. An emerging great power and the largest exporter responsible for driving substantial global growth should get a say in the rules. That's just common sense. China maybe revisionist but it also has't been in a large shooting war in 40 years, that's a good direction to revise towards.
Number of complaints is irrelevant without considering the magnitude of the infractions.
Does the US require foreign firms to have local partners? Routinely ignore foreign copyrights? Completely block all foreign information from reaching its people?
>Completely block all foreign information from reaching its people?
There are many studies that shows that racism is still present in US, in police,justice, work place
Now you give me the excuse for the racism then think maybe China may have their own excuses that you will not understand, then maybe think about school shootings tell me the excuses for why those happen ..then think maybe China has some excuses too for other shit.
IMO there are problems that don't have a simple solution, tell em the simple solution for the gun violence or racism in US. Is the same for China or other country, there is a large number of people in that country, they have a different culture, they have different values and you can't change them over night and some US values should probably be not exported.
Bringing the freedom to access all the internet and suggesting the the US actions are because Trump cares about that is ... , so let's agree that Trump or US don't started this because of human rights (see Saudi Arabia money accepted with open arms) . It is an political/economic issue and even if you as a person care about the human rights if you claim this is about that you are naive.
My points about racism is not to try to put an equality between the 2 countries, I want to show that there are issues that have no simple solution, you make a lay that from tomorrow all races are equal and it takes a few generations for the racism to completely disappear. As similar you can't have China embrace all Western values over night, it is not possible. it takes generations so you need to be patient.
I did not see your simple solutions for the US or China issues, do you have them? If there are no such solutions what do you want? An invasion or tariffs to bring down the firewall and magically fix the racism in China (while at the same time you have a racist leader)
Does it matter? US has a different protectionist toolbox, one that is applied more broadly and affects more countries across the world. Chinese JV affects IP heavy western companies disproportionately, companies with the loudest lobbying voices which gives the perception of magnitude. But we don't know the relative severity only broadness of impact, where US protectionism and number of victims is multiples more. Unless you want to believe USTRs 250-600 billion a year estimate, which again that's propaganda at work.
Of course severity matters. Someone who gets a speeding ticket every single day of their life is still less of a criminal than someone who commits armed robbery just once and never breaks another law.
I agree severity is hard to measure, but that's not a reason to ignore severity and compare something that's easy to measure but uninformative.
In the absence of numerical measures of severity, there's room for opinion. My opinion is that the Great Firewall or Chinese IP theft are more severe infractions than tariffs or protected industries.
The big difference between the us and china is the us doesn't require international companies building factories in the us to disclose their technology to required local partner companies here. That's the key problem with China (second would be outright stealing technology and hacking) and this first thing is the easy thing to hold against them (I'm aware this supposedly changed, tesla said they didn't have to do this for their new factory, but lets see if it is true). It's basically indefensible, just like the super low international post rates that Chinese companies have enjoyed until the recent agreement [0]. Of course china doesn't really operate according to international law unless it suits them, and so if you protest unfair treatment in China, your company won't succeed. That was all before the recent kidnapping of book sellers from H.K. (and billionaires). So to sum up my wandering comment, it's hardly surprising that there are less complaints in China, because complaining means the likely end of your chance to operate there.
Was Tibet the last place China invaded, that was more than 50 years ago though. It's true they haven't invaded any places people live, but they are taking over those atolls out in the ocean.
Every country has some protectionism (Canada and their milk farms for example), and everyone wants to help themselves. But the "proper" way to do this is trade off a few protectionistic choices against another countries and shake hands over it. China is of course the emerging great power and the us is handling it poorly at this moment. I advocate for the us to insist China stop doing the stealing by official decree, stop putting "holds"/prisoner-keeping on people at the border. If the us is able to get china to actually be a good citizen in terms of following international law, and we get back to mutually beneficial trade pacts, we'll all be okay and reduce the chance of war. I really think our insane period in the us with a nationalistic stooge will end, and we can back away from the edge of the abyss where we are now.
When one is powerful enough, rules are an advantage. The powerful can now enjoy the well protected benefit of breaking the rules. That's how we can more or less predict who breaks the rules.
>China maybe revisionist but it also has't been in a large shooting war in 40 years, that's a good direction to revise towards.
Indeed it would be, though China hasn't been in a large shooting war since Korea largely because they were incapable of it. But as their military capabilities change, their shooting war track record may too.
Broadly speaking (for a detailed list see the US Trade Representative's report[1]) they failed to allow access to their markets or respect the rights of foreign companies.
They've shown that a nationalist nation can exploit the globalist system to its own profit, raising doubts about globalism itself and leading to the resurgence of nationalism.
Mainly they don't have the strength to break the status quo. Plus they don't want to jeopardise access to such a large market. It's a Faustian bargain they're beginning to regret.
China is going to rise, this cannot and should not be prevented. But allowing them to rise at your own country's expense is folly. America gets this.