Let's Tone Down the Rhetoric

The rhetoric from Washington about China indicates our relations with that country will be a major topic in the fall presidential election. That is a reasonable expectation. Whether the discussion is based on reason and reality is another matter. 

Americans have long been conflicted towards China. I remember my mother attending meetings of the Lottie Moon Circle at our Baptist church. Lottie Moon had gone to China as a missionary in 1873. Responding to her pleas, women in the Southern Baptist Church began collecting funds to support missionary work in the Far East. The effort apparently continues to this day.

The attitude towards Chinese immigrants was a different story. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, suspending immigration of Chinese workers for ten years. It was the first US legislation placing restrictions on immigration.

Prohibitions against Chinese immigrants continued into World War II. They were repealed in 1943 when China became an ally against Japan. In the aftermath of the war, relations between the US and China became ice cold when the Mao Tse-tung’s communists came to power. Chinese intervention in Korea and support for Ho Chi Minh’s forces in Vietnam intensified the freeze.

In the early 1970s President Richard Nixon initiated contact with Mao in the hope that improving US-China relations might give the US leverage in dealing with the Soviet Union and Vietnam. His gambit was generally successful, but it did not meet with universal acceptance at home.

China began opening up to foreign trade and investments in the late 1970s. It soon became the world’s fastest growing economy, averaging nearly 10% annual GDP growth through 2018. At that time China was the largest merchandise trading partner of the US, its biggest source of imports and third largest export market. China also was the largest foreign holder of US public debt.

American corporations played a major role in China’s growth, outsourced millions of jobs to take advantage of cheap Chinese labor. They also sought access to the Chinese consumer by locating manufacturing and retail activities in China. Despite the negative impact these action had on American workers, the exodus continues to be encouraged by US tax and labor policies.

  

Concern among Americans about the rise of China has been growing for some time. How to deal with the challenge of that country’s rapid economic progress and military modernization while at the same time retaining access for American business to China’s rich markets has been a subject of constant debate during the past three decades of US presidential elections. No administration has been able to develop an acceptable approach that enjoys broad public support.

In his 2016 presidential campaign Donald Trump promised to aggressively confront China, putting an end to trade advantages the latter has achieved through export subsidies, currency manipulation and lax labor and environmental standards. Once in office, the former real estate developer initiated negotiations with the Chinese while threatening a trade war if his demands were not met. This has generated acrimonious debate, but little concrete change.

Part of the problem is that Trump also harshly accused other countries, including some of our most loyal allies, of treating US companies unfairly. Although most European countries are concerned about China’s policies and ambitions, they see Trump’s belligerence as reckless and self-serving. This has been evident in the US failure to convince its European allies to avoid doing business with the Chinese tech giant, Huawei.

The trade and military disputes between the US and China are being complicated further by quarrels related to the coronavirus pandemic. China has not denied the pandemic began in Wuhan, one of its major cities, nor that there was some initial delay in revealing the extent of the health threat.

Trump was also slow to recognize the impending danger and his administration has been unable to respond in a timely manner with a consistent message. In an effort to deflect criticism of his performance, Trump, without evidence, has blamed China for the pandemic, even suggesting the Chinese acted deliberately.

In another defensive reaction, Trump is threatening to withhold funding from the World Health Organization and refuses to join the European-led joint effort for vaccine research. In stark contrast, Chinese President Xi Jinping in a speech to the WHO governing body has pledged to provide $2 billion over two years to support the fight against the pandemic.

Three and a half years of Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric and nativist policies have isolated the US from its traditional allies and has set the stage for an excessively bitter presidential campaign this fall. A contest to see who can bash China with more rancor will not serve the interests of the American people or the world at large.

China’s unfair trade practices must end and reinstating economic security for the average American has to be achieved, but both goals require that the United States maintain civil if not cordial relations with the rest of the world.