Viewing US-China Trade Relations through the Presidential Debates
Published in Wen Wei Po
(Hong Kong) on 24 October 2012
by (link to original)
The curtain has closed on the final U.S. presidential debate. Incumbent President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney were surprisingly similar on matters concerning China, and neither neglected to make use of the topic in their bid for votes. Because the U.S. economic recovery remains weak, painting China as a scapegoat for the economic depression can be used to divert voters' attention. In reality, regardless of who is elected or which candidate has not yet proposed an effective plan to revitalize the faltering economy, "trade friction" between China and the U.S. is inevitable. China should mentally prepare itself for this and have a plan ready to respond. As for the trade disputes and tariffs that the U.S. has leveled against China, China should approach the problem from multiple angles. It should use legal firepower and file a suit under the framework of the World Trade Organization, and at the same time use retaliatory measures in kind to make the U.S. understand that protectionism can only cause greater harm to U.S. businesses.
In every U.S. election, the Democratic and Republican candidates lock horns over their policies toward China. The general consensus in the past has been that the Republican Party, which advocates free trade, takes a relatively more amicable stance toward China, while the labor union-backed Democratic Party is more hard-line. However, despite the fact that both candidates this year have emphasized that China can become a partner of the U.S., they have still pointed fingers while discussing U.S. unemployment, the trade deficit with China and other issues during the debates.
To hold China up as a scapegoat for the U.S. economic depression is not only inconsistent with reality, but is also far from being just and equitable. The U.S. has received numerous benefits from its trade with China, including an expansive market, low-priced goods, and increased employment. From less than $2.5 billion in trade when China and the U.S. opened diplomatic ties in 1979, aggregate bilateral trade has increased to nearly 180 times that size with last year's $446.6 billion. The two nations have long since become the second-largest trading partner of the other, and China has been the fastest-growing export market of the U.S. for the past ten years. While it is true that China has seen some benefits from developing these trade relations, it has similarly been advantageous for the U.S. Despite this, the U.S. is growing increasingly apprehensive about China from a strategic standpoint, and putting China in check has become its long-term strategy. As a result, regardless of who is elected, the U.S. will pursue its course of enacting trade policies to contain China even more strongly.
The U.S. general election has politicized U.S.-China trade issues out of necessity. But shifting America's domestic problems onto China will ruin the atmosphere of economic cooperation that the two countries have developed. This does not serve the interests of the U.S., China, or their peoples, nor does it have a positive impact on the global economic recovery. At present, the U.S. and China are both in the midst of power transitions, and relations between the two have already become extremely sensitive. The U.S. candidates attacking China is not advantageous to bilateral relations. Both nations must actively put forth an effort to establish a stable strategic framework for U.S.-China relations
In every U.S. election, the Democratic and Republican candidates lock horns over their policies toward China. The general consensus in the past has been that the Republican Party, which advocates free trade, takes a relatively more amicable stance toward China, while the labor union-backed Democratic Party is more hard-line. However, despite the fact that both candidates this year have emphasized that China can become a partner of the U.S., they have still pointed fingers while discussing U.S. unemployment, the trade deficit with China and other issues during the debates.
To hold China up as a scapegoat for the U.S. economic depression is not only inconsistent with reality, but is also far from being just and equitable. The U.S. has received numerous benefits from its trade with China, including an expansive market, low-priced goods, and increased employment. From less than $2.5 billion in trade when China and the U.S. opened diplomatic ties in 1979, aggregate bilateral trade has increased to nearly 180 times that size with last year's $446.6 billion. The two nations have long since become the second-largest trading partner of the other, and China has been the fastest-growing export market of the U.S. for the past ten years. While it is true that China has seen some benefits from developing these trade relations, it has similarly been advantageous for the U.S. Despite this, the U.S. is growing increasingly apprehensive about China from a strategic standpoint, and putting China in check has become its long-term strategy. As a result, regardless of who is elected, the U.S. will pursue its course of enacting trade policies to contain China even more strongly.
The U.S. general election has politicized U.S.-China trade issues out of necessity. But shifting America's domestic problems onto China will ruin the atmosphere of economic cooperation that the two countries have developed. This does not serve the interests of the U.S., China, or their peoples, nor does it have a positive impact on the global economic recovery. At present, the U.S. and China are both in the midst of power transitions, and relations between the two have already become extremely sensitive. The U.S. candidates attacking China is not advantageous to bilateral relations. Both nations must actively put forth an effort to establish a stable strategic framework for U.S.-China relations