 |
|
 |
|
Charles Jaco has written opinion and commentary pieces for dozens of magazines and newspapers. Each week, read and comment on a fresh on-line version. The discussion page enables you to share your view points world wide. If you would like to make a comment go to the " Join the discussion" link below. If you would like to view past editorials visit the Editorial Archive.
Editorial: 5/19/2000 Is World War III against China inevitable? Current China scholars are split
about fifty-fifty. Is China a rising superpower? On this, there's almost 100 per-cent
agreement that the answer's yes. Does China's current leadership look at the United
States as a declining power, one that can be picked apart eventually? Based on the
writings from their top foreign policy scholars, the answer's probably yes.
So why could a permanant trade deal with China be in the United State's best
interests? Simple. The theory is that opening up China to free trade with the U.S.
will eventually undercut the current leadership. The hope is that will lead to
more capitalists, fewer communists, and less of a threat from China eventually.
That trend's already started. China already has areas like Shanghai where most
communist rules have been suspended in the economy. A whole new breed of cell-
phone toting free market businesspeople has been created. They're the ones who have just
as much at stake in the worldwide market as any American business-type. Clone them, the
theory goes, and you make it far less likely that American aircraft carriers will ever
face a barrage of Silkworm missiles and retrofitted SCUD's.
But here's the problem. None of the debate about whether a fat communist is a
happy communist has centered on national security. Not surprisingly in the greedy
go go dot com world of this last year of the century, the debate's all about money.
Which is why you have President Clinton, Vice President Gore, George W. Bush, and
most of Congress's Republicans gung-ho for the China deal.
It's big money from big business that's cutting a swath across party lines.
The Clinton administration has effectively subcrontracted American foreign policy
to the Commerce depertment for years. National security concerns have taken a back
seat to increased Chinese markets for McDonalds, Microsoft, and Monsanto. Procter and
Gamble drools about a billion Chinese washing their clothes with P&G products.
Anheuaser Busch salivates at the prospect of a billion thirsty Chinese popping a
cold Bud.
Meantime, liberal Democrats opposing the bill find themselves allied with Ross
Perot and Pat Buchannan. Again, the issue's money, specifically worries by big labor
that jobs making cars, shoes, computer chips, electrical motors, and just about anything
else you can name will be taken away by obscenely cheap Chinese imports. The leftish
Ecxonomic Policy Institute has estimated that almost two million U.S. jobs will vanish
if the deal with China goes through.
The current hard-liners in Bejing are for the deal. They look at it as another
weapon--this time an economic one--that can be used against the U.S. Staunch anti-
comunists in this country also favor the deal, thinking it will do just the opposite--
turn loose an economic virus inside China that will weaken, cripple, and eventually
kill the communist heirarchy.
My idea would be to pass the China trade bill, but not to make it permanant.
Instead of renewing it every year--like we do now--renew it every five years. That way,
we get to ride herd on what the Chinese are doing. And we get to bring it up in
a non-election year. That way, maybe, just maybe, the debate will focus on something
besides money.
|
Visit the Editorial Archive.
 |
|
[ News Views ] [ Coming Up ] [ Public Speaking ] [ News Boom ] |