Why Doesn't the Free World Boycott China?

[Bush92]

BBC News - Hong Kong protests Premier Li stresses social stability
Why does the free world continue to trade with an authoritarian regime like China? Why do leaders in Washington D.C. go bonkers over Iran or North Korea getting nukes...but not take measures against China that is by far a worse threat to the free world?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Wal-Mart?

 

[Bush92]

Wal-Mart?

I think it's deeper than that. The nation that spends more $$$$$ in Washington DC to lobby members of Congress is China. Harry Reid's son works for a Chinese firm.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I think you might want to support Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren

 

[Bush92]

I think you might want to support Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren

Why? Obama said he was going to stand up to China and did not.

 

[Bush92]

I think you might want to support Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren

Virgil Goode on Free Trade
I voted for the Constitution Party candidate because of his stand on China.

 

[Ringel05]

I think you might want to support Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren

Why? Obama said he was going to stand up to China and did not.

And you believed him??!! Crap, he's a politician, why would any sane person believe any politician?

 

[Indofred]

China that is by far a worse threat to the free world?

How many Chinese aircraft carriers are there near the US?
How big is the Chinese military presence just off US waters.
How many Chinese military aircraft have flown within 10 miles of US maritime borders?
How many military bases does China have in countries that share maritime borders with the US?

Now, ask the same questions with China and the US reversed, and ask who the aggressive nation is.

 

[Bush92]

China that is by far a worse threat to the free world?

How many Chinese aircraft carriers are there near the US?
How big is the Chinese military presence just off US waters.
How many Chinese military aircraft have flown within 10 miles of US maritime borders?
How many military bases does China have in countries that share maritime borders with the US?

Now, ask the same questions with China and the US reversed, and ask who the aggressive nation is.

How many days a week does China hack our computers and infrastructure?
How many times has China supported global terrorism?
How much aide does China given to North Korea and Iran?
How many school children in China are taught that the 21st century will be the Chinese century?
How many times had China manipulated its currency to fuck the rest of the industrial workers of the world?
How many times has China stole patents and trade secrets of other nations?
I say lets get it on between US and China right now. Perhaps it could save our nation from liberal hell it is descending to.

 

[Katzndogz]

China is offering the world what we used to and no longer do. The United States has become a has been country. Attention has been turned to our betters.

 

[B. Kidd]

We need someone to buy the high-end real estate in NYC.

 

[Rozman]

Where will we get our stuff from?

 

[hipeter924]

Where will we get our stuff from?

Yep, they make our stuff, including iphones and car parts.

 

[Indofred]

China that is by far a worse threat to the free world?

How many Chinese aircraft carriers are there near the US?
How big is the Chinese military presence just off US waters.
How many Chinese military aircraft have flown within 10 miles of US maritime borders?
How many military bases does China have in countries that share maritime borders with the US?

Now, ask the same questions with China and the US reversed, and ask who the aggressive nation is.

How many days a week does China hack our computers and infrastructure?
How many times has China supported global terrorism?
How much aide does China given to North Korea and Iran?
How many school children in China are taught that the 21st century will be the Chinese century?
How many times had China manipulated its currency to fuck the rest of the industrial workers of the world?
How many times has China stole patents and trade secrets of other nations?
I say lets get it on between US and China right now. Perhaps it could save our nation from liberal hell it is descending to.

The first thing that we see from your answer is your total inability to answer.
In fact, America is the aggressive nation here, stationing massive military resources close to China, then blaming China for the military build up.
As for your questions:
America hacks computers in several countries, as it does telecommunications systems in order to spy on friendly governments - ask Germany.
America has supported, and indeed actively been involved in, global terrorism.
How much aid does America hand out to nasty nations? You lot have supported some evil bastards in the past, including Saddam in Iraq - of course, you don't like that mentioned.
How many school children in America are taught that the 21st century will be the American century?
The petrodollar is the mother of all currency manipulations.

In other words, America has done everything that it's accusing China of, except a lot more and has invaded a lot more countries than post 1945 China ever has.

China trades its way around the world, commonly taking advantage of America fuck ups to gain business and influence.
America shoots, bombs and murders to gain business and influence and put its pet dictators in power.
If you don't believe me, see the CIA bombing of Indonesia, the American mass murders that helped Surharto become dictator in Indonesia.

 

[Truman123]

The question might seem oxymoronic to the hard-dried American nationalist, but deserves its due all the same: As per the American experiment, which ranks supreme, democracy or capitalism? In just this century in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States has loudly proclaimed that exporting democracy is of paramount importance, and has paid a steep price in both blood and treasure attempting to demonstrate. But with an eye to the globe, especially in regards to China, one is left with much ammunition to counter the claim that democracy matters more. China’s political system, which brutally oppresses its own people in a new form of authoritative capitalism, meets the minimal requirements concerning America’s interests – capital. That China refuses to implement a democracy, a tenet prescribed in its own constitution, matters little, if at all. That the U.S. so publicly prohibits doing business with the likes of North Korea and Cuba is only so because those nations lack the money to make a difference, and has nothing to do with their internal politics. It is logical to conclude that they are but bad capitalists. Beijing needs not reform any of its abuses so long as the money flows. This will prove not only hypocritical regarding America’s interest in the future, but might prove deadly as well.



The cashing in on the growing market in China, while practicing a willful ignorance of its internal matters, leaves no doubt as to whether both American companies and its government favor democracy or capitalism. As per China’s economic boom, 300 million people are now ensconced in the middle-class. With such serious purchasing power, it is plain to see that the U.S., who so righteously rails against totalitarianism of poorer nations, is willing to look the other way when such basic principles as freedom of speech are ignored. This has been most apparent with Hollywood, an industry willing to kowtow to Chinese censors in capitalistic pursuits. One such example can be found in 2007’s ‘Pirates of the Caribbean: At the World’s End.’ Walt Disney Pictures agreed to cut ten minutes of the film in order to rake in millions. Of particular concern to Chinese censors was the movie’s portrayal of Singapore, which contained an unacceptable number of pirates. According to the state-run news service Xinhua, such a depiction is guilty of “vilifying and defacing the Chinese.” (This runs uncomfortably close to the oft-repeated and infantile complaint of “hurting the feelings of the Chinese people,” which is always invoked by only those most powerful without popular consent.) This is adding insult to injury when considering that Singapore is not even part of China, but a sovereign nation. Furthermore, Singaporeans vote. No matter, when money is to be made, democracy is assigned a back seat.



But it is not the state censors alone who rule when it comes to altering movies for the Chinese market. The 2012 remake of ‘Red Dawn’ illustrates the self-censorship that big studios are willing to engage in. China only allows thirty-four foreign films to reach its screens each year, and in order to make ‘Red Dawn’ politically palatable, MGM chose to spend one million dollars changing the invading army from the PLA to North Koreans. It can only be describes as poetic justice that this film was a flop worldwide. As the timeline continues, and the monetary stakes grow higher still, it becomes ever more obvious where United States’ priorities lie concerning democracy and capitalism. Former Senator Chris Dodd, who heads the Motion Picture Association of America, apparently without a hint of shame, stated last year that, “Chinese box-office receipts grew a staggering thirty-one per cent—to about $2.75 billion—making China the second-largest international market, behind Japan.” A hefty price-tag for integrity, indeed.



In the realm of entertainment, movies are the big money-makers, but that makes Western acceptance of censorship concerning books and music no less pernicious. A case epitomizing such a shortcoming can be drawn from author Ezra F. Vogel, who, being a Harvard professor, really should know better. Vogel made his book ‘Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China’ available to the state chopping block. What was cut from it ranges from absurdly trivial – a reference to Deng’s shaking hands during a meeting with Gorbachev; to the crucial - omitting the mention of the fall of communism across Europe. The author justified it in this way: "To me the choice was easy. I thought it was better to have 90% of the book available here than zero." That might make a lot of sense inside his own head, especially as it accompanies riches, but imagine Vogel stating something similar about the Declaration of Independence. Could anyone ever take him seriously again? It should be hoped that his present folly is enough to ward off any future interest in his work.



Music, being an audible form of poetry, is the purest form of idealized art, and as such, is especially susceptible to the censor. For the past half century, Western music has done much to criticize against that place of its own nexus, something that could never have been accomplished in a totalitarian environment. It might surprise a good many that Western music, especially Rock and Roll, could find a home in China, given the language barrier. However, it has met with some success. On March 15th in Shanghai, fifteen thousand fans showed up for a Rolling Stones concert. Three years prior, none other than Bob Dylan performed in Beijing. These two might seem especially odd choices when considering that at the heart of much of their music are matters political, but makes more sense when one considers that state censors are allowed to review and approve their list of songs beforehand. Musical matters are especially sensitive now, and the scrutiny glaring, after politically prickly quips were uttered by Bjork and Elton John in Chinese concerts. (Bjork brought up the issue of Tibet; Elton John gave a nod to China’s artist non grata, Ai Wei Wei).The rising might of the yuan, it seems, is the highest of ideals for many musicians, no matter how iconic they might be, and even if furthering their fortunes is but an afterthought.



Near the end of President Clinton’s second term, he stated that trying to control the internet in China would prove to be much like trying to “nail Jell-O to the wall”, but history has proven him wrong. The Great Firewall of China was launched in 1988, and has been used to filter out content the government deems inappropriate. Many social networking sites, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube among them, are blocked by the CCP for the simple reasons that the government cannot selectively block content from these sites nor control civil discourse they might generate. In lieu of these, China has launched its own social platforms. Weibo (much like Twitter), and WeChat (more like Facebook) have gained colossal followings, but with a catch. In addition to automated censoring, an army of censors labor day and night to selectively delete content deemed inappropriate. It is not enough that the CCP keep a finger on an internet “kill switch”, capable of shutting down entire networks like they did following the Xinjiang riots of 2009, but also must nip in the bud quotidian infractions. China has about twice as many internet users as America does people, and American companies, remaining well aware of this, are willing to put democratic ideals on the backburner, so long as there’s money in it.



Search engines provide insight into the matter, as both Google and Bing have shown their true colors. Google is an especially interesting case, as it has shown some backbone in the past in regards to democratic ideals. But it later reversed course, fearful of missing out on the cash prize. In January of 2010, Google took a stand, announcing its departure from China due to the CCP’s censoring of search results. In addition, Google had cause to believe that possibly state-aligned hackers were trolling through its email lists looking for ‘subversives,’ most of who were guilty of doing nothing more than seeking the very democracy the United States claims to treasure. Google’s presence in China remained in truncated form only, as the company allowed users to continue using its search engine by rerouting them to Hong Kong, which enjoys an unfettered internet. At times, however, Beijing continued to block it altogether, make it so painfully slow as be next to useless, or utilize its Great Firewall to block access to resultant links. Still, Google informed users within China that search results were being censored by the powers that be, as a sort of friendly warning, until finally relinquishing even that service sometime in late 2012.



But Google's ambiguity seems trivial when compared to how Microsoft's search engine, Bing, has conducted its affairs. GreatFire.org, an internet watchdog group that monitors Chinese internet, last month took Bing to task for not only censoring Chinese language search results within China, but even bowing to pressure from the CCP in such searches outside of China. Bing later issued a statement attributing this to “an error in our system.” Perhaps so, but just this week, Great Fire was back with another criticism, this one just as damning. Microsoft, the second richest corporation in the world with $72 billion in annual sales, does more to suppress the truth within China than even China’s premier domestic search engine, Baidu. Case in point is how He Weifang’s blog is handled. Although it can be found in search results even on Baidu, a Bing search will return you no mention of it. He Weifang is a professor at Peking University, and his blog is one of the few pro-democracy voices not yet shuttered in China. This is an especially prescient example because it pits democracy directly against capitalism, and exposes the true winner. In a press release, Microsoft pledged its support of “civil society organizations (including human rights and press freedom groups), investors and academics to protect and advance freedom of expression and privacy on the Internet,” but their its actions give its rhetoric a hollow ring.



It is no secret and there can be no doubt that when it comes to the United States government’s approach to China, money ranks supreme over any notions of democracy and human rights. Although U.S. politicians will occasionally raise issues, such as Vice President Biden’s recent condemnation of visa denials for American reporters, they are few and far between, and amount to little more than grandstanding. The given numbers are bleak. Most important and well-known among them are how much U.S debt China has bought. That America has allowed China to buy upwards of $1.3 trillion, or about 8 percent of the total, shows not only an egregious faith in capitalism, but even a bad form of its implementation. For with this substantial investment, China can now much more easily shake off any pressures for democratic reforms.



But the problem was not born of nothing. By first allowing China to join the World Trade Organization in 2001, Western governments signaled their consent. The United States in particular was keen on China joining. Nicholas R. Lardy, writing for the Brookings Institute in 1999, stated that “U.S. policymakers should vigorously pursue an agreement” while acknowledging, just a few paragraphs later, a “concern over increased Chinese human rights violations.” In 2013, this precedent helped China to gain a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, even though they refused to allow U.N. personnel to investigate. Xinhua, with newly-founded credibly, wasted no time in pouncing on the announcement, stating: "China's election to the U.N. Human Rights Council Tuesday also serves as the international community's acknowledgement of China's significant achievements in the field of human rights." This kind of legitimization would be laughable were it not so cruel. Just this week activist Cao Shunli died in Chinese state custody after, her lawyers assert, being denied medical treatment for tuberculosis. Cao’s crime was promoting civil society within China, square one in any democracy. A nation like the United States, who so publicly boasts of its commitment to just such ideals, owes Cao more than this.



China is not the lone country in which United States businesses and its government looks the other way on democratic ideals in order to make money, but it is the most relevant in light of recent events. If through some miracle, the poorer, un-favored nations were to grow their economies to world-standards, one could rightly expect Washington’s list of democratic grievances to shorten immeasurably. Saudi Arabia is representative. Although a country like Saudi Arabia employs a system of government that can rightly be labeled as oppressive, it is left to its own devices for two big reasons: it is not considered a military threat, and it has something the U.S. wants – oil.



But China’s rise is not on the same plateau as Saudi Arabia. Given recent events involving her neighbors from Japan to the Philippines, China has shown a newly aggressive approach in asserting its power. Its booming economy has benefited significantly due to dealings with a willing America, and has blossomed dangerously. Consider China’s military spending in recent years, and especially in the last two. It was in 2010 that China’s economy became the second largest in the world behind America, and it was just this year that its military budget did the same. China’s defense spending now stands at $131 billion, more than a 12% increase over last year, suspect figures at best. It would be dishonest not to mention that Washington’s military spending is quadruple this, but it would be equally naïve not to wonder at Beijing’s intentions. As this military muscle grows, China, of course, cannot resist flexing. Last year Beijing set up an air defense zone covering islands whose ownership they dispute with Japan. In response, Washington flew tow B-52 bombers through this zone to test Beijing’s response. Fortunately, nothing happened. But what kind of future does this spell out? For even if there is no direct conflict between the two giants, a cataclysmic event might well be kicked off by a row between China and Japan, whom America is obligated to defend in the event of war. The United States’ continued economic engagement with China is not only detrimental as demonstrating a loss of commitment to democracy, but is a powder keg in the brewing.



Most of the same folks that would tell you that capitalism and democracy may never be untwined will go on to explain how the ‘invisible hand’ of the free market will correct all errors, but when taking a good look at Sino-American relations, this argument implodes. Should not the invisible hand of the free market have already spelled out that the cheap imports from China were a threat to American interests? Had they, we would presently see empty the aisles of every Walmart from Pensacola to Seattle. There exists a blind spot when it comes to capitalism, and often this is where democracy dies in the dark, giving birth to possible catastrophe.