Barack Obama on China – Ben Landy
From China Redux blog:
Barack Obama delivered the first major foreign policy address of his Presidential campaign today at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. Here are the lone references to China in the speech, as prepared for delivery (for a list of Obama’s five key points, see this NYT post):
“And as we strengthen NATO, we should also seek to build new alliances and relationships in other regions important to our interests in the 21st century. In Asia, the emergence of an economically vibrant, more politically active China offers new opportunities for prosperity and cooperation, but also poses new challenges for the United States and our partners in the region. It is time for the United States to take a more active role here – to build on our strong bilateral relations and informal arrangements like the Six Party talks. As President, I intend to forge a more effective regional framework in Asia that will promote stability, prosperity and help us confront common transnational threats such as tracking down terrorists and responding to global health problems like avian flu.”
“In this way, the security alliances and relationships we build in the 21st century will serve a broader purpose than preventing the invasion of one country by another. They can help us meet challenges that the world can only confront together, like the unprecedented threat of global climate change.”
And on the environment:
“We should push for binding and enforceable commitments to reduce emissions by the nations which pollute the most – the United States, the European Union, Russia, China, and India together account for nearly two-thirds of current emissions. And we should help ensure that growth in developing countries is fueled by low-carbon energy – the market for which could grow to $500 billion by 2050 and spur the next wave of American entrepreneurship.” [Full Text]
POSTED COMMENTS: 5 Responses
Nor would it necessarily be a good thing. It is important to remember that free trade is the key to remain competitive. Government-instituted policies in protecting old rust-belt industries is a misguided notion at best. Take iPods for example it cost Apple something like $4 for the assembly of iPods in China, where does the rest of this money go? Right back to the engineers and designers in Coopertino. One interesting fact about iPhones that are assembled in China for a few dollars are being smuggled back into China and sold for five hundred dollars. China is Microsoft’s second-largest market. Trade is creating high-end jobs and ensuring better standards of living in the US. The reason that America is so competitive in the high-tech industries is that we have rules that protect and foster fair competitions. US should instead insist to China on fair competitions and practices in China through the WTO, where it has been proven effective. In the long-run this is better for both countries.
I love these kind of single sighted, short economic view statements. The USA does not base its revenue or meters for the representation of its currency value against just the electronics industry. It takes a diversified view of its economic offerings to be truly forward moving and economically prosperous. Failure to build and service capital goods, in conjunction with a trade deficit is nothing, but unhealthy. In addition, lets get to the key point here around competition. Competition is fine when all parties play by the rules. China for years has artificially been devaluing its currency, causing unequal bounds for competitive exchange and mutual benefit. So in conclusion, before you talk about competition and growth through complete free trade, please… let’s ask China to stop playing American Football during a baseball game. Its not fair to tackle players at the bases… Let’s all play by the rules and then we can talk!!!!
Agree with Comp. When China’s factor workers are unionized as they in the USA and Europe, we can start to talk about “fair trade”. The concept of the USA as a consumer nation that does not build things is abominable (and doomed to fail). We know now that the a large portion of the financial services sector is a shell game. America will slide as a nation unless it maintains its industrial base.
LOL, yes we should all play “fair”. “Fair” that is according to US interpretation of the “rules of trade”, such as conveniently ignoring international trade fundamentals like relative competitive advantages that encompass factors of production such as fixed and variable costs etc. whevenever it is politically expedient to do so.
Lest we forget, the “Buy American” clause in the US’ bailout scheme, its disporportionate say at IMF/World Bank, its political machinations to wrangle major deals, esp. in oil. Or that for too long international trade has been denominated in US$ that has enabled America to live way beyond its means. Yes, “fair” as in become more like the USA even if it means credit crunch, sub-prime and interest group money politics.
Unlike politicians or two bits laymen, no economists worth their salt would ever ignore such basic economic principles. So thanks, but no thanks, not everybody is keen on your particular interpretation of “free trade”.
Regardless of the various views on who is and isn’t practicing “free trade,” there’s a legitimate argument to be had about whether it’s a worthy goal at all. The U.S., Britain, Japan, Korea… lots of countries built their economies up by protecting certain key industries. Currency “manipulation” seems in line with that trend and, therefore, basically excusable.
Workers’ rights seem like a separate issue. China has respected freedom of association mostly in the breach. The ACFTU has shown some signs of life recently and the 1980s Chinese idea of “Staff and Workers Representative Congresses” is pretty cool, but the PRC has, at least at a local level, let businesses largely do what they like, unchecked. In the U.S., meanwhile, unions have been in a long decline (and their freedom of association limited in less dramatic but nonetheless dangerous ways).
So, it seems like dialogue on these points would serve as a good counterpart to the environmental dialogue. If working people are to be respected, the world’s biggest economies may need some rough consensus…