Jeg holder IKKE med Kina

Diverse — Drokles on March 27, 2018 at 4:24 pm

Men jeg er enig i, at dem skal man ikke grine ad. Trump har en bemærkelsesværdig kvalitet. Hvis Trump forsvarer USAs eller Vestens interesser, bliver  Trumps kritikere slået af forbavselse og beundring for vores fjender. Ved Ambassade flytningen til Jerusalem var de despotiske arabere og deres bizarre krav om vetoret for amerikansk udenrigspolitik fornuftens stemme og hvad angik kontrol med atomvåben var Iran den modne stemme. Eksemplerne er mange og nogle er endda skizofrene, som frygten for at Trump ville føre en atomkrig mod Rusland fra Putins lomme.

Ved vinter OL frabad enkelte sportsstjerner sig fra at mødes med Præsidentfruen og Vicepræsident Mike Pence, der var med ved legene, og også et efterfølgende besøg i det Hvide hus. At besøge Nordkorea havde ingen problemer med. Så galt var det, at medierne endda forelskede sig i Nordkoreas propaganda minister Kim Yo-jong og fordømte Mike Pence for ikke at værdige hende et blik under åbningsceremonien. CNN skrev at Yo-Jung ville vinde guld, hvis diplomatisk dans var en olympisk disciplin. Hun ville i hvert fald have gode chancer for guld, hvis det var en olympisk disciplin at drive koncentrationslejre thi det er hendes profession.

Uffe Ellemann beskrev i en blogpost i 2017 Trumps opførsel som “ulideligt og skabagtigt”, som han med “sin forvredne mund” kun fremtvinger ‘dumme grin’ blandt “hans følgeskab af klimafornægtere og isolationister”. Dette satte Ellemann overfor “det kinesiske triumftog i Europa” efter at Trump klogt havde lagt Parisaftalen i graven. Og nu er det igen Kina, som lanceres som garanten for den globale frihandel overfor isolationisten Trump og hans forkærlighed for ødelæggende handelskrige. Men det forholder sig omvendt, skriver Lawrence Solomon i National Post, Trump er ikke ved at starte en handelsekrig han slår bare igen og hans kritikere “need to open their eyes and see the world as it really is — dominated by protectionists.”

Take automobiles, one of the world’s largest industries. American automakers selling into the European Union face a 10-per-cent tariff, four times that faced by European car makers selling into the U.S. American car makers selling into China face a 25-per-cent tariff. But these high tariff barriers are better, in a way, than the hurdles American automakers face when they sell into Japan, which has no tariff at all yet effectively shuts out U.S. exporters: Toyota sells more cars in a single California dealership than all U.S. automakers sell in Japan.

Instead of tariff barriers, the highly disciplined, uniquely structured Japanese economy employs non-tariff barriers — a host of formal regulations and informal understandings. Korea likewise employs non-tariff barriers, despite (or perhaps, because of) KORUS, the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. As put last year by American Automotive Policy Council President Matt Blunt, “Clearly, KORUS has had mixed results for America’s automakers and it has failed to live up to expectations. There is no question the Korean marketplace is one of the most difficult for any automaker to export into in the world.” Each of the Big Three U.S. manufacturers is allowed to bring in just 25,000 vehicles built to American standards. “Anything above that needs to be on Korean standards (which) really restricts the access that U.S. companies have to the Korean market,” said U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.

Non-tariff barriers exploded throughout the world following the formation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and its successor, the World Trade Organization. As governments at international gatherings solemnly vowed to lower or eliminate tariffs, at home they silently replaced them with non-tariff barriers. “Both the OECD and the World Bank have been pointing to the rising impact of ‘non-tariff trade barriers’ on international trade,” notes David Hanson, associate professor of international business at Pittsburgh’s Duquesne University, in his book Limits to Free Trade: Non-Tariff Barriers in the European Union, Japan and United States.

Lars Løkke håber fornuften vinder og betegner “told på stål og aluminium, som er en provokation, og som verden ikke har brug for” - helt uden at nævne de danske afgifter på biler. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation slår til lyd for et opgør med den eftergivenhedspolitik

A far more proactive, whole-of-government response, in tight partnership with our allies, is needed to ensure that Chinese innovation mercantilism is contained and then rolled back and a genuine market- and rules-based global trading system restored.

Unless U.S. policymakers want to blithely accept Chinese innovation mercantilism and the damage it inflicts on the U.S. economy and its advanced industries as beyond their control, it’s time for a new approach that moves beyond the naïve push for further dialogue and instead makes it clear to Chinese leaders that such unfair, harmful policies cannot be practiced with impunity. But this fight cannot be about individual tactics, for the Chinese government has shown itself to be quite adept at abandoning certain tactics when they become discredited due to global pressure, only to adopt new and more effective ones in service of its overall mercantilist strategy. The focus needs to be not just on tactical wins, but on more broadly enlisting the global community to help roll back the entire Chinese innovation-mercantilist enterprise and getting China to finally become a responsible player in the global trading system. As such, the Trump administration has a unique opportunity to work with our allies to press Chinese leaders for a fundamental economic policy reset that will move the world economy back toward the rule of law and market-based policies.

However, to succeed, a new approach to U.S.-China economic and trade policy from the U.S. government will need to be pursued with great care and sophistication. The Chinese government is not without weapons, and it has demonstrated a strong willingness to use them to fight back against legitimate efforts to try to get it to stop manipulating the global trade system. And because of the lack of rule of law in China, the Chinese government could very well use its powers to capriciously punish U.S. firms producing or selling there. But doing nothing due to the fear of retaliation should not be an option.

As such, the Trump administration needs to make crystal clear that any such strategy is based not on punishing China nor seeking to hold it down. Indeed, it is in America’s interest to have China rapidly increase its citizens’ per-capita incomes. The administration also needs to make clear that the strategy is not based on making America great again or putting America first, but rather that it is based on saving the global trading system by restoring it to a rules-based one.

Det er ikke blot et spørgsmål om penge og handel, men magt. Og mellem Vesten og Kina er det et spørgsmål om hvilken kultur, der skal dominere, frihedens eller tyranniets, skriver John Haywarth i Breitbart

A funny thing happened on the way to that inevitable triumph of liberty: authoritarianism adjusted its tactics, teamed up with the Western left to attack the foundations of classical liberalism, and found ways to not only control the Internet but turn that gushing firehose of intellectual freedom into an instrument of control. If you enjoyed watching Russia use social media to vandalize Western democracy, you are going to love how China uses it to surgically dismantle the Enlightenment.

China is already directly controlling Internet access for about a quarter of the entire planetary user base, and it exports its expertise by sending consultants abroad to teach other authoritarian regimes how to lock their nets down, too. China aggressively pushes its vision of tightly regulated speech and information as essential to social harmony. Does anyone doubt that it will find a growing audience among the increasingly censorious Western left?

Social media companies that long ago knuckled under Chinese demands for censorship, in exchange for access to its huge online marketplace, are growing more comfortable with speech policing and ideological control in Western markets as well. Twitter’s recent purge of “blue checkmark” account verification for purely ideological reasons, when the system was originally presented as a completely impartial means of confirming that some users are who they claim to be, is a perfect example of Chinese thinking infecting the West, especially since the purge makes glaring exceptions for politically correct purveyors of “hate speech.”


China has become very adept at exploiting stress points in Western society and co-opting the language of its political class to sell authoritarian ideals. Social justice and income inequality? Those are staples of Chinese political speech, which boasts of using centralized power to distribute resources more fairly and efficiently – even though China has one of the worst “wealth gaps” in the world.

Environmentalism? China is keenly aware that hardcore environmentalists already fantasize about doing away with representative democracy to save the Earth, because free citizens are short-sighted and foolish. China will boast incessantly of how its system prioritizes doing the “right thing” over antiquated notions of inalienable rights and self-governing citizens. Certain quarters of Western academic thought are quite receptive to the idea that only command economics can save the Earth from the ravages of capitalism.

“It will not be difficult for China to tempt young people with a tale of socialism done right, a benevolent tyranny run by honest and wise planners who finally manage to deliver the proverbial free lunch.” Jep, de unge let påvirkelige sjæle har altid været udset som ofrene for alle totalitaristers drømme, blanke tavler som de er.

Trumps evne er ikke uden fortilfælde, han er blot last man standing imod den eftergivelsespolitik, der vokser ud af den kulturelle selvlede. Om det er at kalde Churchill eller Reagan for krigsmagere mens de ser den sagtmodige rimelighed Nazitysklands og Sovjetunionens trusler til harcelering over Jyllandspostens religionskritik som civilisationskritik og formummelsens frigørende kvindesag til aflad for historiske bedrifter fordi shithole countries ikke er shithole countries fordi de har været kolonier, men blev kolonier fordi de var shithole countries til at starte med, men i det mindste en overgang, nød lidt af driftighedens og åndsfrihedens frugter, venstrefløjen og deres medier er altid på fjendes side imod deres landsmænd og endda egne idealer.

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress