Obama and Romney Best Not 'Go Too Far' Bashing China (Xinhua, People's Republic of China)


Are President Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney putting the wellbeing of their nation at risk by bashing China at every turn? According to columnist Liu Jie of China's state-run Xinhua, both candidates are proving themselves poor partners for the People's Republic of China, and must take care not to 'go too far' with their careless accusations and threats.


By Liu Jie


October 23, 2012


People's Republic of China - Xinhua - Original Article (English)

The Debates are over: Republican nominee Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama shake hands at the end of the third and final debate, this one on foreign policy. Eighteen foreign countries were mentioned during the clash, and not counting Russia, only one of them was in Europe - Greece.

BBC NEWS VIDEO: In a feisty 90-minute head-to-head, the two candidates tangled over the Arab Spring, Iran, China's rise and more, Oct. 23, 00:02:34RealVideo

BEIJING: In the last of three U.S. presidential debates, both candidates for the first time framed China as a partner, offering a speck of belated comfort to a country that had been portrayed in their two previous face-offs as a monetary cheat and job thief.


In Tuesday's finale, the candidates showed a bit of comradery by stopping short of completely vilifying China: Barack Obama admitted, "China is both an adversary but also a potential partner"; and Mitt Romney, fond of bashing China, said, "We can be a partner with China. We don't have to be an adversary in any way, shape or form."


A few relieving words. But they will be quickly overshadowed by the traditional campaign tricks of using ill-grounded hypotheses and scapegoating. The U.S. president-in-waiting, whoever is elected, will lack a deep enough understanding of how partners should treat one another.


The two candidates continue to compete to see who can flex their muscles on China more. Romney repeated his threat to designate China a "currency manipulator" and punish it for intellectual property theft, while Obama continued to parade his "trophy" achievements: doubling U.S. exports to China, the most advantageous exchange rates to American business since 1993, and a special task force focusing on trade.


During the campaign, regardless of the facts of the matter, both have relentlessly blamed China to cover up for their own incapacity to get America's domestic economy back on track. It is a tactic that only serves to expose the world's superpower as bereft of ways to address its real problems.


Bashing China as a way of scoring political points is so much easier than finding real solutions.


Unsurprisingly, the presidential debate became a vanity fair for people competing to denigrate China. This has little to do with China, and everything to do with the world superpower's loss of competitiveness.


Both candidates vowed to "put significant pressure" on China to make it play by the rules. They should know that such rules have never been based on pressure, but on candid talks and concessions, which take mutual benefit into account.





Like Worldmeets.US on Facebook


Rules are not only important to America, but to China. Even Obama acknowledges that China has altered its exchange rates, that the yuan has appreciated by at least 31 percent since 2005, and that U.S. exports to China have doubled during his tenure.


A more balanced currency regime not only serves to balance trade, but helps restructure and improve China's exports, a development that is in the interests of the nation.


While amending its own behavior, China must stay on course and not surrender. The yuan's more than 30 percent appreciation has generated positive results, both in China and the United States. But going any further down that path will run counter to China's fundamental economic interests - a move that will be blocked without hesitation by the Chinese government and people.


As the world's sole superpower, in arenas ranging from trade to the military, the United States is the chief author of today's global rules. It can file cases with the World Trade Organization whenever it feels a situation is beyond its control. It can also block emerging Chinese companies with excuses based on "threatening national security" - even when such accusations are groundless.

Posted by Worldmeets.US


One thing President Obama should never do is use out-of-context results to defend his record addressing trade with China. He said tariffs against Chinese tires created U.S. jobs, but he omitted the other less-pleasant side effects: according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, U.S. consumers paid $1.1 billion more for tires thanks to the move.


Meanwhile, although 2010 U.S. tire imports from China declined by nearly 23.6 percent from 2009, overall imports jumped by more than 20.2 percent, a fact that doesn't exactly bode well for American jobs.

Globe & Mail, Canada

[Click Here for More Cartoons]


Romney, who has been unusually truculent toward China, appears to have decided that his stance in the first two debates was too aggressive, and toned things down in the final round, dismissing suggestions that he would start a trade war.


Fortunately, it seems that the game of China-bashing has yet to spin out of control. The millionaire who once profited handsomely from doing business with China knows that the world's two largest economies, who carry on trade equal to nearly $500 billion a year, cannot afford the backlash of tit-for-tat tariffs and an all-out economic war.


Romney stated, "We can be a partner with China. We can work with them, collaborate with them if they're willing to be responsible." Romney should be reminded that partners must be responsible for each other.


When it comes to bashing China, the candidates should be mindful no to go too far. If they do so to win votes, the specificity of their promises will leave them little room to maneuver once getting onto office.


In any event, whoever wind can be expected to wriggle out of any tough promises on China they have made between Election Day and the inauguration. If so, why bother wasting time and resources by firing away in the first place?



Corriere Della Sera, Italy: 'Obama Prototype': Rome's Black Emperor, Septimius Severus

Guardian Unlimited, U.K.: Obama Fires, Romney Falters, but 3rd Debate Fails to find Flourish

BBC News, U.K.: Global Poll Shows Rest of World Favors Obama

The Economist, U.K.: A Win for Obama

Guardian Unlimited, U.K.: Obama vs. Romney: Third Debate in Gifs

La Repubblica, Italy: Game Change: Obama Comes Across as 'Non-Leader'

El Universal, Mexico: U.S. Ruling Class Favors Obama Victory

El Pais, Spain: President Romney Will Come to Regret Damaging Remark about Spain

El Mundo, Spain: Romney Lies About Government Expenditures in U.S. and Spain

El Semanal, Spain: Spain Asserts it has 'Little to Envy' in Regard to U.S.

El Pais, Spain: Mitt Romney and Spain: Is Ours a Failing Brand?

Le Figaro, France: U.S. Presidential Debate: Pro-Obama Media Suffers Major Defeat

Handelsblatt, Germany: For Germany, a Romney Win 'Would Have its Advantages'

Guardian, U.K.: U.S. Debate: No Zingers, but Romney Finally Lifts Off

Guardian, U.K.: Combative Romney Comes Out on Top Against 'Lackluster' Obama

de Volkskrant, Netherlands: Why Should We Care About America's Presidential Election?

The Bohol Standard, The Philippines: We Filipinos Must Learn from the American Election

Huanqiu, China: China Must 'Strive to Influence' American Presidential Elections
Gazeta, Russia: Why America's Republicans have No Foreign Policy


blog comments powered by Disqus











































[Posted by Worldmeets.US Oct. 23, 1:29pm]