4
0

How Bill Clinton sold out America to the Chinese


 invite response                
2020 Apr 18, 9:59pm   830 views  8 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (55)   💰tip   ignore  

https://spectator.us/bill-clinton-junked-america-supremacy/

How Bill Clinton junked America’s supremacy

The US-China Relations Act was a monumental mistake

‘This is a good day for America,’ said President Bill Clinton on May 24, the Year of Our Lord 2000. ‘In 10 years from now we will look back on this day and be glad we did this.’ Clinton was talking about the House of Representatives’ vote to award normal trade relations to China. And he was right.

By 2010, despite the crash of 2008, the knowledge class still largely considered the decision to support China’s entry into the World Trade Organization as a great boon. China’s rise had turbocharged globalization and made us all richer — never mind the stupefying sovereign debts. Labour unions had opposed it, but leaders and corporations were still enthralled by the gargantuan consumer markets.

Fast forward another decade, however, and the US-China Relations Act, Clinton’s last significant legislative accomplishment, looks like a monumental mistake: the moment when America, perhaps the greatest superpower of all time, rolled over and invited its demise.

Globalization, it turned out, was not a faultless blessing. It slowly morphed into something quite different — in many circles today, the term is merely a euphemism for letting China win. As we approach the anniversary of that vote next month, perhaps Americans should mark it in a solemn way: a day of national mourning to commemorate their nation’s eclipse.

The COVID-19 crisis has exposed China — the way it fiddles the truth, the extent to which it is willing to cover up its misdeeds, the way it uses financial might to silence dissent. Beijing’s much-vaunted ‘peaceful rise’ has masked an unpleasant reality. That mask has slipped — funny, in a way, given that we apparently now must all wear masks.

Now Americans see quite how dependent they are on an autocratic and aggressively mercantilist regime. The awful truth becomes incontrovertible. Western supply chains are hopelessly reliant on China, especially for critical national security goods, such as pharmaceuticals. ‘Never again should we have to depend on the rest of the world for our central medicines and countermeasures,’ said White House director of trade Peter Navarro, a well-known China hawk, recently. The Trump administration has been criticized and praised for its tougher approach towards Beijing. The question now is — is it all too little too late?

America began outsourcing technology and manufacturing to east Asia back in the 1960s. But the millennial admission of China, and its enormous population, into what Clinton called the ‘rule-based international system’ was the global game-changer — largely because China never had to play by international rules. Not only did China offer huge amounts of cheap labour, it also adapted its financial system to capitalize on western investment, including through currency manipulation and other dubious practices, which gave it an edge over other poor manufacturing countries.

‘By this agreement, we will also export more of one of our most cherished values, economic freedom,’ promised Clinton. ‘Bringing China into the WTO and normalizing trade will strengthen those who fight for the environment, for labor standards, for human rights, for the rule of law.’

Clinton was never much good at honoring vows. The truth is that China wasn’t put under any sustained pressure to embrace western democratic standards — too much money was at stake for such concerns. Westerners contented themselves with bleating occasionally about human rights, while China was allowed strictly to control its vast internal market — allowing western companies in but only under its terms. ...

So China became the factory of the world and the global economy warped. In 2020, we see the consequences and they aren’t good. ‘A lot of Americans died for freedom, and a lot of sacrifice should not go unredeemed,’ said Clinton, on that fateful day. ‘We owe it to them, to their children and to our children and grandchildren to give the world a chance to build a better and a different future.’ Then he went and gave it all away.

Comments 1 - 8 of 8        Search these comments

2   RC2006   2020 Apr 19, 5:18am  

It really started in the 80s that when you started to see made in China pop up on everything.
3   GreaterNYCDude   2020 Apr 19, 6:27am  

The question is how much more would.you be willing to pay for X if it were NOT made in China... or (heaven forbid) made in the USA.
4   RC2006   2020 Apr 19, 7:53am  

GreaterNYCDude says
The question is how much more would.you be willing to pay for X if it were NOT made in China... or (heaven forbid) made in the USA.


Even more important of an issue I think is the consumerist addiction with buying garbage. It wasn't long ago you couldn't buy things unless you had the cash on hand, also things didn't need to be replaced as often. I wouldn't mind spending 10-30% more on items made here that were built to last, I already do for a lot of things like tools and stuff. Offshoring to just save on the margins so only a few Execs get a larger bonus should be illegal, and every country that has an imbalance with us should be tariffed until a balance is made.
5   NDrLoR   2020 Apr 19, 8:09am  

RC2006 says
I wouldn't mind spending 10-30% more on items made here that were built to last,
Neither would I, especially since that 10-30% more would go to an American instead of a dirty little yellow-bellied slant-eyed chink. It would stay right here in our economy and do it good--non of the outsources seem to take that equation into mind.
6   Rin   2020 Apr 19, 8:23am  

Patrick says
Fast forward another decade, however, and the US-China Relations Act, Clinton’s last significant legislative accomplishment, looks like a monumental mistake: the moment when America, perhaps the greatest superpower of all time, rolled over and invited its demise.

Globalization, it turned out, was not a faultless blessing. It slowly morphed into something quite different — in many circles today, the term is merely a euphemism for letting China win. As we approach the anniversary of that vote next month, perhaps Americans should mark it in a solemn way: a day of national mourning to commemorate their nation’s eclipse.


The problem is a bit more complex than that.

During the Cold War, the US did try to trade with others, whether or not they were NATO. The difference, however, was that despite all the talks of 'free trade', US vendors were not allowed to ship stuff which could be retrofitted into a supercomputer to a slew of neutral South American countries, including Brazil, which were never enemies in terms of proxies of the USSR, PRC, or Vietnam.

What happened with PRC was that all that Cold War wisdom was tossed out the window.

In place of letting let's say X percent of an industry's work with Chinese partners, it became a free for all. And then, over time, we find National Security issues like components of the F-35 being made in a hostile country, a.k.a PRC.

In effect, if we still had some National Security wherewithal, we could tossed CEOs in jail for violating 'em, instead of giving them a carte blanche to line their pockets with bonuses for offshoring sensitive work.
7   Patrick   2020 Apr 19, 10:55am  

https://twitter.com/jreichelt/status/1251431001999527936

China‘s embassy in Berlin wrote me an open letter because they weren‘t too happy with our Corona coverage. I responded.
8   Patrick   2020 Apr 19, 10:57am  

https://spectator.us/tried-warn-national-security-council-china-fired/

When I joined the National Security Council in May 2017, I had two goals in mind: educate the other members of the NSC on China’s not-so-covert campaign for global dominance, and ensure the security of the 5G network not only within US borders but for our allies as well. Given decades of Chinese digital infiltration and IP theft, there was little doubt that the Chinese Communist party (CCP) would put a premium on controlling 5G networks. China’s biggest telecom companies, Huawei and ZTE, began aggressively offering to build 5G networks for other nations. And that set off alarm bells in my head.

If a Chinese telecom builds and controls a nation’s 5G network, there will be no checks and balances to keep the Chinese company from stealing and mining all the data on that network: all the academic papers and research, all engineering and business plans, all the photos, emails and text messages. Everything will be fair game to a country that doesn’t believe in fair games.

Furthermore, controlling another nation’s network will allow the CCP to weaponize the technology that is managed by the network. What does that mean? Think of a hostile force taking over a self-driving car or bus and directing it to crash into a crowded sidewalk. Think of a flock of drones moving into the flight path of an airplane. Think of every digitally controlled furnace shutting down during a subzero cold spell.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions