Recently, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) released their “2010 Annual Report” (complete in PDF) to the U.S. Congress, criticizing China over many issues. The USCC’s purpose is as follows:
To monitor, investigate, and submit to congress an annual report on the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China, and to provide recommendations, where appropriate, to Congress for legislative and administrative action. Public Law 109-108 directs the Commission to focus its work and study on the following eight areas: proliferation practices, economic transfers, energy, U.S. capital markets, regional economic and security impacts, U.S.-China bilateral programs, WTO compliance, and the implications of restrictions on speech and access to information in the People’s Republic of China.
In my view, this is the same sort of propaganda like the other annual report, by the U.S. State Department: “The Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.” (My take on that.)
On the RMB valuation, it offers no intellectual honesty on why China is doing anything unfair. (Also, see “The Politicization of the Yuan” by Allen.) Despite the report saying otherwise, the G20 was about the U.S.’s very own USD devaluation strategy against the rest of the world’s currencies. On trade balance, there are so many intelligent Americans who understand the situation (Michael Spence for example), so why allow seemingly unintelligent third rate college students to write that annual report?
On weapons proliferation, look at U.S.’s share of weapons sales around the world (see “Western human rights activism, where is the real humanity?“).
I suppose I could go on.
There is nothing new in the report the U.S. media have not already touted. I suppose the only thing new is this report being “official.” But I am amazed at how weak it is in arguing for the U.S.. Propaganda need not be intelligent or truthful I guess.
China’s Foreign Ministry made a short statement over this report: “FM: USCC report on China truthless, prejudicial.” And, I have to agree. Indeed, truthless and prejudicial.
To some extent, China might not mind these reports too much. While the US gov’t sends time and energy towards these false accusations, they aren’t spending time tackling the real problems in the US. This allows China to continue closing the competitiveness gap, and indeed, start surpassing the US. I’m sure any one who doesn’t like the US is rooting for Palin to win 2012 to take self destructive policies even further. The rot of America starts from within, not without, and it needs to be healed from within.
I usually don’t read reports like these (no time), but I did quickly peruse through it and didn’t find that much problems with it. In fact, I find it to be useful. If anyone has the time, just read the report, it gives an “honest” perspective of the American View – Foxnews style. These form a good set of seeds for new posts for the future…
For example, when I quickly perused SECTION 2: THE IMPLICATIONS AND REPERCUSSIONS OF CHINA’S HOLDINGS OF U.S. DEBT, I actually agree with most of what is written. China’s holding of U.S. debt is not strategic, it’s an economic necessity. That we can agree on. The thing that is wrong with it is the lack of the broader picture or deeper economic insight – including the presumption that a currency must be valued by Wall Street Insitutions (i.e. by the likes of Soros) and global central banks (which are mostly corrupt anyways).
Charles Liu says
China was the only one unscathed during the Asian financial crisis during the 90’s – could it be because the IMF had no hand in China’s affairs? I remember news of Thai Bhat raped in open market, and Koreans were donating their gold jewery to the government.
As to proliferation, how does China’s nuclear weapon compare to ours? China’s ICBM hasn’t changed much since deployment in the 80’s, unfueled and warheads stored off-site. The PLA worrys more about accidental firing than actually using it.
Agreed. And the longer the Americans put off reforming Social Security, Medicare, and spend more money to 'nation build' in the Middle East, the better for the rest of the world.
I’ll eventually make a more serious and sincere rebuttal to this report.
My main concern is that both Democrats and the Republicans only agrees on one thing – that is to blame foreigners for the declining status of the United States. (I should say the U.S. media too.) Given the incredible power of the U.S. military, that coupling is dangerous for our world.
We know essentially it is critical for governments to have a peaceful transition of power. On the global stage, that same transition of power has to be smooth between nation states, otherwise it will spell trouble for all of us.
It’s the interest of our world to ensure the dominant power not stray away from truth.
When it comes to foreign policy, there’s little difference between Republicans or Democrats. We should all remember the Dems are as culpable for voting for the Iraq war as did the GOP. Even after things went horribly wrong, many Democrats criticized Bush only on his conduct of the war (i.e. messing it up), not for the fact that war was started for the wrong reasons in the first place.
From Rice to Clinton, the State Department hasn’t changed all that much. Their number one policy remains to be the maintenance of America’s hegemonic position. Despite the financial situation at home, there is no retrenchment abroad or even a discussion about that. In fact, under Obama, there seems to be increased efforts geared to contain China. Let’s not forget that one of the first things Obama did was to sell arms to Taiwan. Sure, Congress already approved the package during Bush’s term; but he could have done something about its contents (but didn’t). Also in the last couple of months both Clinton and Obama have been busy making stops all over Asia, openly talking about America’s continual “commitment” to the region and encouraging Japan and South Korea to build up their militaries.
Are the Dems any different from than the GOP when it comes to foreign policy? Let me paraphrase one paragraph from David Calleo’s “Follies of Power”:
“The European approach to interstate relations is strikingly different form the approach of many American liberals who, although constitutionalists at home, tend to be Hobbesians abroad. Inside the U.S. they prefer, in principle at least, power to be dispersed and contained within a liberal and constitutional framework. Outside the U.S., however, they want American power focused to dominate. These are America’s hybrid liberals. They may retain their faith in the virtues of global free markets and popular democracies but believe that such a global system can work only with a benevolent and omnipotent hegemon. Only the U.S., they believe can play this vital role. When they search for historical validation they find not from the Concert of Europe– an arrangement suited to a plural system–but from the mid-nineteenth-century Pax Britannica.”