A rival for hegemony in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region. The current hegemon in this region is the US. It is the strongest APAC power by far due to its numerous military bases as well as its network of strong allies (Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea). China seeks to displace the US as the hegemon in APAC. Naturally, the current hegemon doesn't take too kindly to that. So they view China as a rival.
More than US seeing how PRC has significantly less disputes (normalized for acession time), both as initiator and target per WTO stats and generally abides by WTO disputes ruled against her favour. Even PRC's accession protocol was made extra onerous via US objections who still got outplayed - it isn't/wasn't PRC paying lip service while blocking WTO dispute resolution system. PRC believes in free trade more than US because she's learned to play the game better vs US flipping over the gameboard. Which is fine, globalism no longer in US interest, but lets not pretend US isn't systematically the worst exploiter of free trade even while being the most influential rule writer, and increasinly worse when as those priveleges erode.
You’re talking about the China who recently put trade sanctions on Korea for installing missile defenses (who has a now-nuclear neighbor) and Australia for dare mentioning that COVID originated in China?
>If Beijing keeps breaking free-trade rules to make its foreign-policy points against rival nations, it will hurt domestic markets and lose international stature
You eating biased media diet doesn't invalid the statistical reality that PRC, relative to her signifcant trade volume and relationships is objectively one of the better adherents at WTO relative to countries that whine about PRC unfairness. From TWO DSS database:
- PRC 65 disputes, 21 as complainant, 44 as respondant
- USA 279 disputes, 124 as complainant, 155 as respondant
- SKR 39 disputes, 21 as complainant, 18 as respondant
- JP 42 disputes, 26 as complainant, 16 as respondant
- AU 25 disputes, 9 as complainant, 16 as respondent
- EU 190 disputes, 104 as complainant, 86 as respondent
Another apt comparison: India 56 disputes, 24 as complainant, 32 as defendant, while 1/5th smaller than PRC.
Normalize for trade volume and accession time (PRC has been WTO member for 21/27 years, with again, more onerous accession requirement than typical) PRC is better than all USA, SKR, AU. In fact substantially better than other major powers. And as US has demonstrated, historically, it's completely normal to jetison trade rules for national security / foreign policy.
Forcing equal access to markets is a limit on sovereignty (freedom). That's why the TPP got shut down. Equal access to markets in many cases just means total economic subjugation of weaker nations by commercial interests like the whole India colonial period.
Yeah sure… the worlds largest economy is too weak to import roughly 300b a year in goods to balance us/China trade. 300b/yr is enough to subjugate a 27 trillion/yr (gdp ppp) economy. rofl
My point is rather than deciding which economy is large enough to decide for itself how to tariff, you let everyone decide for themselves. And in fact this is how the world works by default, and even the US chooses selective tariffs… so what does it mean to selectively cry “fair trade” only when it benefits your local corporate interests?
Think about the opposite of what you are suggesting… should China now start subsidizing US businesses by buying made in USA when they don’t have to? If we make good products, they have no choice but to buy it because their citizens will demand it.
And your last sentence is wrong— Chinese are not free to buy us made goods if they think they are better. China places heavy tariffs and other protections on imports.
Since you seem to be unaware.. that’s what you’re arguing for: the right of China to place heavy tariffs on foreign goods, while using wto rules to prevent other nations from doing the same to Chinese goods.
Counties agree to wto rules so they can export more.. those rules apply in both directions. If China doesn’t like wto rules, they can withdraw and do as you say: everyone applies whatever tariffs they want on Chinese goods; and China does the same.
Yes that is what I am arguing for… the right for sovereign nations to place tariffs. I mean, the US has tariffed Chinese goods as well now so it’s fair game. And if tariffs are so great why don’t countries do it all the time?
Despite tariffs iPhones still sell well and take a majority of profits in China, because it’s a superior product. Tariffs are just a form of subsidy and subsidies protect companies but make them less competitive. Apple wouldn’t exist if America was protectionist.
My (admittedly US-centric) understanding of the TPP's demise was that it simply found itself politically untenable in an time where globalization was very unpopular, and concerns about the influence of China were not top of mind. Both 2016 US major-party presidential candidates came out against it (though you could reasonably argue about whether Clinton really meant it).
Ironically, speaking of freedom, the Libertarian candidate was the only one to support it officially.
What about it? The US is also the hegemon in Europe. The "West" just means the US and its network of alliances. Other Western countries may want good relations with China, but they need to take US views into account because the US bankrolls their defense and is also a very important trade partner.
Large, strong countries do what they want and small, weak countries do what they must. That's the way it is and the way it's always been.
Don't you think that 's a bit too arrogant? Why should germany support the US domination over Japan, when all they want is industrial materials through the indo-pacific route.
I think the world was more fair during cold war, having 2 superpowers pushed both of them to keep each other in check. This one state world, seems worse
Since you brought it up in your example: US, Germany and Japans interests are aligned against China regarding the indo pacific trade route… china’s ambitions to claim all of the South China Sea seek to disrupt the trade route.. and the us helps protect that route by performing freedom of navigation exercises (which have a very real chance of sparking a war that the us alone would be responsible for).
