Colleagues spoke of this column at lunch, and the agreement was the column is masterful and distinctly necessary for us to understand. China and America need each other and I find the relationship critically important in resolving needs of economic development and climate change.
17
Hopefully the US and China will reach a reasonable compromise in the near future reflecting the most likely results of an unnecessarily prolonged situation.
5
The real issue is you can vote Trump out soon.
China really began to drift to the unknown once Xi decided he would be President for life.
12
Mr. Friedman,
The equivalency you draw between US and China is at best misguided and at worst - when claiming a moral equivalency ("everyone spies on everyone") - shameful. Years ago you naively fantasized about having an "efficient" government such as China's run the US for a day. That government you so admired forcibly moved people out of their homes and demolished them to build those highways and fast-train railways you praised. It now mass-incarcerates (or worse) its own minorities, oppresses disidends, bullies its neighbors, and seeks global military and economic leadership through technology theft and abusive economic practices.
Let's be clear: the US is the victim here, and China the aggressor. China not only engaged in massive theft of US intellectual property (the "greatest transfer of wealth in history" according to NSA's Gen. Alexander). It gives state subsidies to its technology companies in an attempt to put US and other competitors out of business - see Made in China 2025. It unlawfully claims ownership of the entire South China Sea. It threatens and undermines our allies in the region. It has built weapons - many with our (stolen) technology - designed specifically to attack our aircraft carriers, satellites, and bases. These are direct US interests - not to mention the threat of invading Taiwan; the concentration camps for the Uighurs; and the persecutions in Tibet. Many Dems like me dislike Trump profoundly but as to China think he's not going far enough.
16
You can’t play baseball against an opponent with a pathological need to ignore the rules.
4
Several thought I think need to be said:
1) Note for those folks proclaiming how the TPP was so wonderful. It didn't matter who got elected Trump, HRC or Bozo the Clown. TPP wasn't getting through congress. Ther was NO appetite for shipping more jobs overseas to benefit the 3rd world at the expense of the US working class. And there still isn't, TPP in this country is DEAD, that's not gonna change.
2) Proclaiming how everyone in the United States was a winner out of Globalization is at best a delusion. I know way to many people who used to have a middle class job and life & lost them courtesy of Globalization. Trump didn't get elected because globalization was benefiting most Americans.
3) I find it amusing how many people proclaim that the US has to bend over backwards to accommodate China, But China doesn't have to be subject to the same rules One set of rules for Chinese Co, doing business in the US And an entirely different set of rules for US Co, doing business in China. How about if we just mirror China's rules for foreign companies ?
4) For those who believe trade prevents war? Hardly, look up who Germany's largest trading partner was at the beginning of WW2.
5) The WTO is basically a joke and a fig leaf. Generally by the time it rules damage has been done and are irreversible. In most cases it rulings are effectively meaningless not to mention it has delusions! Like China is a developing economy & not subject to the same rules. A developing economy? Riiiight!
15
The US drives the global arms race.
3
Another story unreported, last Friday was the fifty-fifth anniversary of the Kennedy assignation and I never saw a single mention on any news program I saw that day. That was the first time for me.
6
And theUS is gutting the WTO. To what end? Beggar thy neighbor begat WWI
3
Friedman seems quite short sighted as he whines about how the current spat with China has impaired the USA's ability to attract the best and brightest talent from across the world (on the cheap, of course, while ignoring the proper education of our own young people). Any country that relies on foreign talent to drive its innovation is doomed to lose everything in the end. In my view, it's better to devote the necessary resources to properly cultivate our domestic human capital than to sell our soul so that we can continue to syphon talent away from our competitors.
10
This is hilarious coming from one of the most naive cheerleaders of globalization. People got tired of lining the pockets of the elites and corporatists and reclaimed power through populism. Paulson was the figurehead of bailing all the monied, wealthy classes out with tax payer money to keep their system from toppling over after 2008. China is an evil, self interested l, imperialist, mercantilist dictatorship. Period. They own our debt. All of the elites and corporations were given a free pass to sell out debt and move our production into their immoral and inherently un-American, undemocratic nation under the guise of “free trade”. It’s a bunch of absolute nonsense when the rules of the game are different for each side. Friedman again proving here he is for the status quo. Protecting the global political and corporate elite. Also, nobody cares what far flung place you ate dinner or rode in a taxi or whatever... you’re not in touch with reality Thomas and this piece continues to confirm it.
12
But trump is worried about cancelling Thanksgiving. Or something. (keep 'em dumb and angry!)
If he is re-elected and serious adults are kept from the levers of power, we're doomed.
4
Tom, Trump is the biggest problem and getting rid of Trump is the first big step in solving lots of big problems. But nothing good is going to happen while Trump and his renegades and rogues roam free.
5
The problem Mr Friedman had, is that he is thinking like a racist by thinking that US can win by keeping its system "Open". There is already a failed example - Chinese Nationalist who kept their system sort of open (well, at least comparing with the Chinese Communist Party's system) and failed miserably. So Mr Friedman apparently is suggesting that since we are white people, we can do better than those yellow Chinese Nationalists. That to me, is arrogance and racist.
No real answers here.
1
Tom, you recently shared a stage with Yuval Harari to discuss our real upcoming challenges.
Cooperation on global challenges particularly “destructive, disruptive and manipulative” technologies, was on the menu (you love your zingers, you can thank me for that one later ;))
Please, for the love of all that is sane and for the benefit of your readership, who wants *you* writing not only about Donald Trump, make your next broad readership, accessible popular geopolitics book exactly about this. Shine the biggest light you can on cooperation, its importance, how it’s breaking down, and who is leading the charge to go the other way.
People like you and Harari are the ones who equip us with the “universal in group” stories we tell, challenging the reactive nationalist ones of Donald and Xi.
Write this book.
When China joined the WTO in 2001, US manufacturing jobs declined by 20% in 7 years. Good riddance.
5
Just can't say it out loud, eh Tom ?
Totalitarian communism with state controlled economy vs. regulated capitalism in a democratic republic.
There, that wasn't so hard was it ?
4
The world-shaking news that I missing?
How about the world-shaking news that Tom Friedman is missing? Like the American oligarchy, which includes Mr. Friedman, is rapidly embracing a fascist autocracy. Like our political establishment is made up of two parties, one interested in governing and the other interested in establishing one-party permanent rule.
How about paying attention to that world-shaking news, Mr. Friedman?
5
I do not trust most of what Paulson says; he is a spokesperson and Chinfile.
1
China is laughing behind the back of Mr. Trump. It is pathetic to hear that China has cheated on America because they sold their goods cheap. When in the world has somebody complained because they bought something at a good price? Let's be realistic China is the biggest market for American goods in the near future. If America is stupid enough to stay out of this market other countries will fill in. China is also rapidly improving in all areas of research and to stay out of exchange in research is more than stupid.
3
It would seem that the distinction between "Industrial Espionage" and "Espionage" is blurred so that interpretation is problematic--hence the need for uniform responses, or, "coordinated strategy". Intellectual property law is so vastly complex now compared to when the WIPO was founded that one wonders if the legal profession can take care of the problems which pervade the idea of free trade. The militaristic system which Xi commands I believe to be largely defensive in nature (The South China Sea activities do not seem to directly affect people, which is a contrast, say to the Chagos Archipelago, and the countries which have been affected by the U.S.- British takeover of it.); if there is evidence of espionage within that system exclusive of intellectual property rights, then who deals with it? Presumably the DIA and China's counterpart. If this unraveling produces what we already have, in effect, a trade war, then nobody wins, of course. China and India, with their huge populations, appear to have a compulsive vulnerability, at least in their minds, which is why the militarization seems to go on and on and on. Free trade would be the answer to the problem if it was attainable. There might be no future historians to look back if it continues apace. Same with climate change.
1
For decades China has been systematically making the US, Europe and the rest of the "developed" world pay for and underwrite its eventual dominance. For decades they have been laughing their heads off at our arrogant belief that wealth would democratize them.
Democratic institutions are messy but they created strong societies because they were inclusive. The erosion of these institutions on so many fronts has destroyed these co-joined moral and economic strengths. We assumed we could rest on our laurels without expanding and maturing such institutional superiority. The tech contribution to this erosion is just one example of where we failed institutional and measured consideration before allowing unfettered deployment.
That academic is right, the forest is burning but to the continued advantage of only one entity. We have lost the long game and have only ourselves to blame.
6
New rule: no trade with dictators. Or, at least "take economic hits to avoid trade with dictators".
The only reason we don't trust China with their hands on our short hairs is, well, they are murderous autocrats that would rather kill millions, as Mao did, than give up power. Whereas extending the same trust to us in Canada is routine.
We've clearly come to the end of the myth that engagement with these killers is going to soften them. The joke used to be, in 1997, "Will China take over Hong Kong, or will Hong Kong take over China?"
Well, crony capitalism may have taken over from actual communist economics, but China is clearly taking over Hong Kong.
It's clearly time to try disengagement and impoverishment of their system as punishment for being so heartless and evil, see if that works. Even if it doesn't, at least we won't be supporting it.
Will it be a painful economic hit to pull away from China? Oh, yeah, but it was a painful economic hit for all those factory workers to engage with it, wasn't it? Time for the investor class to take a hit of their own, so sorry.
The working class was not given a meaningful vote on the engagement that cost millions of jobs, and I don't think we should give the investor class a vote on this.
All this goes triple for Saudi, of course: there could be no better human-rights stance, or environmental stance, than boycotting Saudi.
12
This column is simply excellent, I am however distressed to read so many comments showing antipathy towards China. There is every possible reason for the US and China to support each other and I know this is necessary for all of us to live securely and well in confronting global challenges.
3
@Nancy
Not "China". The Chinese government.
We get along with the Japanese very well, since they changed governments. Before that, we kind of, umm, nuked them.
"L. Rafael Reif, warned the M.I.T. community that “looking at cases across the nation, small numbers of researchers of Chinese background may indeed have acted in bad faith, but they are the exception and very far from the rule."
One must wonder if academia is in on the take. From insider knowledge, I KNOW Chinese Nationalists have stolen UCLA BLIND technologies that would and will change the technical future forever. They turn a blind eye to it. Whistleblowers have taken specific instances to the chancellor and beyond, and they have ignored it. One can only assume that they've been paid. Some of the theft was from research financed the the US Government.
China has become a technical powerhouse in the last 40 years, as noted in the post, because they STOLE it.
Some of this theft, if converted to it's proper owners, could COMPLETELY finance our educational system. THINK of that: Education could be FREE to EVERY US citizen!
3
The world-shaking News is that the Trump administration is rightfully not interfering in Chinese internal affairs about Hong Kong, human rights of Chinese minorities and others. Let the EU nations worry about that.
1
So fitting to have a picture of Hank Paulson formerly of Goldman Sachs pictured. For twenty years Wall Street, e.g. investment banks, private equity, insisted every company needed a China strategy which ended up being outsourcing and building a Chinese presence ostensibly to serve that market, that ultimately let the single party ruled Chinese take US technology and know how. The core of most firm’s China strategy included offshoring US jobs. We must never forget the role of Wall Street elite of both parties in hollowing out the American economy for the benefit of a tiny minority of Americans. Financial services sector’s share of GDP has grown steadily since 1980 in close correlation with the growth of income inequality. Disclosure: I’m not a Warren supporter - winning elections is more important than purity - but we need a government that can use the next decade to help change the nature of our economy toward more productive uses of talent than gaming markets, exploitive asset stripping, and personal data exploitation.
10
Bill Clinton, not my favorite, but on the Daily Show a couple years back (Jon Stewart era) said that we are half way through a 50 year period of transition following the fall of the Soviet Union. We are in a struggle for a new equilibrium. And almost everywhere we are a long way off center.
In 1918-1919 following WWII - the GOP lead Senate refused to have an expansive set of policies. The world convulsed and about a decade later began the slide into a new abyss.
The lack of foresight GOP also championed the set of myopic policies that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union when Russia was wide open and ready for liberal-democratic institutions. We should have sent Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union a new Marshall plan, European bureaucrats for institution building and Japanese & South Korean bureaucrats for economic policy & planning. We would have a global block of prosperous liberal democratic nations and an isolated Communist Dictatorship in China.
Chalk it up to opportunites missed. Just like we had to refight WWI in 1939 we'll have to refight the coldwar in the 2020s.
In the meantime the world wide web should be constricted to only those countries committed to liberal democracy, rule by law, human rights, free press etc... and let the wall go up on that border. The countries that try to control truth will atrophy while everyone else surges ahead.
5
The risk of tech integration with China is more than China's ability to use its technology for espionage. Transportation, energy & other critical infrastructure using Chinese technology could, in the event of conflict, be crippled by the Chinese government.
6
The only reason China lets outside businesses in is to gain what ever information/know how they can. Then they subsidize the creation of a Chinese competitor/clone using the knowledge gained from the initial interaction/joint venture. That subsidized business then does anything possible to put the original company out of business by any means available.
Huawei is a prime example of this strategy. China had no modern telecommunication system in the 80's they desired American tech to catch up and approached Motorola seeking modern telecom equipment.
Motorola made a deal with Huawei where they shared telecom software and hardware know how. Huawei then violated the agreements and "stole" the tech Motorola shared with them.
Of course Motorola didn't get that they were really just dealing with a false front company that's really just an arm of the Chinese Government.
China then had the tech so they cut Motorola out. This was followed by Huawei then stealing Cisco's tech and proceeded to make knock off switches and other telecom equipment that were clones of Cisco's products down to the typos in the owners manuals.
Now that Huawei, a subsidized arm of the Chinese Government, has stolen their way up the tech ladder they now are seeking to put all other telecom companies out of business by undercutting any competitor leading to China being in control of telecom supplies world wide.
Tom, how many western flies are going to enter the China spiders parlor before we wake up?
13
There is no intellectual thinking on the very top of the US politics. If Trump gets re-elected 4 years of stagnation on intellect will give China a boost that US may never catch on to them. 4 years of climate neglect will cause havoc and may push the world towards endless conflicts.
9
While I am no friend of Trumps policies in general, I have long opposed economic globalization. It has given more efficient access to world resources, scouring fields and forests in search of profit, and made that "sucking sound" we were warned about as industrial production jobs followed low wages to China, Mexico, and other "developing economies". All of this has put record amounts of wealth in to the fewest hands ever.
Meanwhile, mines dig, forests fall, and steamers and planes carry resources and goods back and forth, contributing significant greenhouse gasses in to the environment and feeding the consumer culture that pushes us to ever more unsustainable levels.
I see nothing wrong with practicing local sustainable practices to meet local needs first and reserve trade more for necessities than luxuries.
Of course, I hold no illusions that this is what is fueling Trump's machinations.
4
Mr. Friedman, between Xi & Trump, there are huge differences in sheer power wielded, by a factor of 10x. It is important not to forget China's significant soft-power as well as modernized military hard-power.
The president-for-life of China is far more powerful than the GOP goofballs at the helm this decade, and from my judgement he is a man that is far more dangerous than Trump & co.
That said, it is tragic to imagine the lines and divisions forming now between many countries, based on tired lies and predominantly little men, with big egos - nothing more.
That said, I enjoy being surprised at twists and turns in how news stories progress. And this complex tangled mess of diplomacy is far from over, in fact it's in the opening stages still most would agree...
1
The technology everyone worries about is obsolete as it begins the manufacturing stage. We have a fake work force unable to compete in the global economy. We need the Chinese to build our products. Our economy is a debt ridden mess that has been in decline since 1980.
1
Trump isn't really interested in winning a trade war, or whatever he's trying to do, with China, it's all a play for a domestic audience. In China he found a convenient villain whom he could rally the crowds against. If this trade war ended, even with a supposed victory, his frothing sycophants would lose interest and need some new villain to blame for their troubles.
There are real troubles in our economic and political relationship with China, but Trump has no real interest in solving them.
7
I believe it was James Fallows, many years ago, who said the U.S.-China relationship would be the most important in human history—not for the global economy, but for our common survival. Because only these countries had the ability—working cooperatively—to delay global warming meaningfully. So much for hanging together.
114
@Richard Coleman
Tom Friedman "I still believe that the most open systems win."
More likely, the most thriving country "wins".
And, thriving is more important than winning.
The US has been a very open system and it has not worked for the majority of citizens.
The US has invested in Friedman's version of "winning', while not investing in its citizens, its infrastructure, or its future as in preventing climate change.
Perhaps a country less obsessed with "winning", but on having a thriving society would evolve a different relationship with "openness".
So many see life in win/lose, open/closed, militarily involved/isolationist... in reality, there is room for many ways, styles, variations...
Perhaps, the olive tree is way more important than the lexus.
The US is no longer the super power,
and if it would stop behaving like a rabid elephant in a china shop, that is our small planet,
and if it would look at itself in the mirror, and see its obscene, colossal, growing inequality,
and see that it has the world's highest rate of incarceration,
and work to repair its own very frayed society,
instead of raging about the imperfections of other countries,
maybe the US could become a wise leader with other leaders in this tumultuous world.
We could learn to get along,
.
27
I couldn’t agree with you more.
3
It's fascinating how someone as intelligent and informed as Mr. Friedman can expound at length on economic competition, geopolitics, and the latest developments in international relations, then end his text with an image of mankind ignoring global warming, without apparently realizing that his whole argument is moot from the start because this very same global warming/climate change/mankind extinction is going to supersede whatever us humans can devise as new means of war and self-destruction. The "world-shaking news" is not the renewed US-China divide, but the latest UN report on climate and the planet:
http://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/climate/greenhouse-gas-emissions-carbon.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=Climate%20and%20Environment
Compared to what's coming, technological supremacy is a joke.
6
'How can we not be fixated on a president who daily undermines the twin pillars of our democracy: truth and trust?'
That would be every single politician and their backers since day one on this planet.
I will simply ask - can you ever actually name one politico who was clean?
The answer is no.
We could simply look away, since it is just another politician who is dirty. like very single one before him.
But the NYT cannot stop printing the name Trump.
2
Yes Tom. You express eloquently what we knew but could not articulate it that well. However one thing is left unsaid.
The biggest looser is Diplomatie as this word does not exist in Trump's dictionary and unfortunately not only in the China vs US theatre. What we have is the Bully in chief and a chinese President who can't afford to compromise or appear weak affecting his hold on power.
So we sit back on that front row sit and weep watching our country decline.
1
Thanks for this article. Meanwhile, a Chinese former spy has defected to Australia, offering up considerable information to the Australian Government. I have not seen this story in any USA media. This is big, and we would do well to pay attention. https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/defecting-chinese-spy-offers-information-trove-to-australian-government-20191122-p53d1l.html
5
America has lost the Tech race and is now doing everything it can to hinder China.
China leads in 5G and the USA is incapable of building high speed rail.
US tech is not made in the USA, it depends on China for production.
China's economy is growing at 3 times the rate of the US even after all the tariffs.
China, like it or not, and for all its faults and repression, is the future.
The USA, like Great Britain, is the past.
4
Love your last quote. Very wise.
1
We in the US are all going to get poorer due to American business selling out our workers for cheaper Chinese labor. Now China will exact it's price -- less freedom, more uncertainty, and real competition. Maybe we should have paid more attention to our long term interests on the 90s instead of the price of widgets.
2
Thanks, Mr. Friedman, for alerting people to the US/China wall-building. However, getting responsible and expert people to address the issues will be irrelevant as long as Donald Trump remains as President. He and his acolytes won’t listen.
For all the non-political reasons you enumerate and describe, Job Number One is to remove Trump and the trumpsters from office.
3
For quite a long time, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the political class in Europe worried about the competition between a fairly autocratic Germany and a fairly democratic Great Britain. 'England and Germany will fight' they said. In the same way, it's quite likely that America and China will fight. The difference is, the stakes are higher, the countries bigger, the technology a thousand times more deadly - and we are all much nearer the end of our time.
3
We talk about China spying on us, but we don't talk about US spying on China, Germany, Brazil, and/or Russia etc. That is why Germany, UK, or Spain is reluctant to ban Huawei's 5G network in each country, respectively. They don't trust our words any more.
Deeds are much more important than words. Our government has different words coming out from various department. We can compartmentalize their reasoning, but we cannot compartmentalize their actions. This inconsistency creates problems for us internationally. Until we will have one voice and one action, we cannot win any trade war.
The world shaking news which you are missing concerns Panamá. In a recent study of Latin America by Wikipedia, Panamá was found to be the only country in LA to have a stable growing economy, a stable democracy and to have as friends the three largest economies in the world; the United States, China and Japan. It is no coincidence that those 3 countries are the largest users of the Panamá canals. This situation probably makes Panamá the safest country in the world.
1
Why should a functioning industrial democracy tie itself, through ever more trade, to an autocracy? Where is the benefit?
Friedman constantly bloviates about how the world should be run, but what is his track record?
For the past thirty years he has been a leading cheerleader for “free trade.” This has resulted in the de-industrialization and decline of a large swathe of our country.
Free trade has been a disaster for our country. Yet despite a few vague caveats, it is Friedman’s prescription for the future. Always.
“Open societies always win.” Really? Tell that to Youngstown. Syracuse. Worcester. The Quad cities. Allentown..,
6
Friedman rightly focuses on China vs US - it's the heart of his article - but he ignores the GOP's utter failure to restrain Trump as he undermines relations with our partners in Canada and Europe.
If it's "us" vs "them" we're stronger if the "us" isn't busy crippling itself.
2
"I am increasingly of the view that everyone spies on everyone..."
Really? Democracies spying on others in order to preserve their values are exactly the same as totalitarian regimes using blanket spying on others and their own citizens to advance their hegemony?
This is the same relative morality that caused liberals to defend the Soviet Union for decades.
Wake up, Tom. China is much more insidious than the Soviet Union. Stand up against dictatorship and stop making excuses.
66
@RAD61
You ask, "Really? Democracies spying on others in order to preserve their values are exactly the same as totalitarian regimes using blanket spying on others and their own citizens to advance their hegemony?"
The answer is Yes, they are the same.
China is advancing its own values of an harmonious society. You may not agree with its values but that's what they are doing
The USA spies on friends and foes to advance US hegemony. (Ask Germany's Angela Merkel and her USA hacked cell phone.)
The USA and NSA use blanket spying on its own citizens. And uses such spying to control dissent such as Occupy Wall Street, Black lives Matter, Martin Luther King, the Vietnam anti-war movement and the Black Panthers.
So yes they are the same.
The only difference is the cultural blinders so many Americans look through.
22
@RAD61
Yes, yes. Like he-man Conservatives are standing up to Russia. Good example.
The Right mans the frontiers... Probably to make sure Putin has a safe trip in.
7
President Trump’s for all his faults may in his own ham fisted way have identified the single greatest threat to the US and the western world.
The author is right that China’s digital wall will be the defining issue this century.
The west has been asleep for far too long.
That Trump uncovered it may yet save his legacy.
3
I think Mr. Friedman is being rather naive on China. As long as the communist political party is in power, China will do anything in its power to increase its world hegemony. Frankly, who cares if China freezes out Apply or Microsoft, but we should be very concerned as to what they are doing to Uighurs and how they are applying that technology on other unsuspecting people. We should also be concerned about the atmosphere of fear and snitching at Chinese universities where professors are no longer free to express their opinions if they contradict Chinese policy line. Just like Russia, that is gradually turning its clock back to Stalin time, without the Gulags, may be, China is turning the dial back to Mao's time, with mass incarcerations, restrictions on freedom of expression, speech, etc. And they are collecting personal information on anyone and everything they can get their hands on. Don't sweat the small stuff.
2
Frankly, I'd cut Russia and China out of the internet asap, and go so far as to sever existing physical bridges. What both have shown is that in any open space based on trust, they are the ones always carrying poison knives. Best leave them out.
The real opportunity is for the US to reconsider helping shift some of what is sourced in Asia to places from which it is receiving immigration, and for Europe to do the same in Africa, both while now insisting on humane labor and sound eco-friendly practices. That would leave desperately mistrustful Asian nations to duke it out amongst themselves trying to all be net exporters.
5
150‐Year Wait for Indian Immigrants With Advanced Degrees.
Mr. Friedman you cannot make observation on talking to few
Indians in Bangalore.
1
Deng C Ping brought back capitalism with this proviso that only the Chinese Communist Party will be in power and no Democracy. It is the Hitler way where Hitler allowed free enterprise but held strict control over them. I am nostalgic for Mao' s days when Mao kept China an economically non-competitive nation and the country posed no economic threat to others. Let us hope another Mao think emerges .
1
So it's Trump's fault that Xi is a dictator.
4
Take care of your own, be of good example, then success comes your way. Here in the U.S. we squabble over insignificant issues, and fail to take care of our own best interests. The coup de grace is putting our government in the hands of a selfish, ignorant buffoon.
8
"All we talk about is DT"
NYT give us a Trump free day once a week or relegate his shenanigans to last page. Catch and kill for sane readers.
5
The world and the U.S. and China will suffer from Trump's bull-in-a-china-shop approach to global economics.
I believe you can thank Adam Schiff for making this all about Trump and nothing about what is occuring outside of Washington DC. Sure, Trump tweets, but Schiff has sucked up about 80% of the media spotlight.
2
The last sentence says it - China and America - 2 families of apes fighting with each other while the forest around them is burning.
The world is on fire, the latest research tells us that we run the very serious risk of temp. rise of 4 degrees C (in 80 years or less) or more if we do not make deep and immediate reductions of our greenhouse gas emissions. My baby granddaughter - now 4 months young, will (hopefully) see the arms of the clock move to 12:01AM, January 1, 2100. If China and America just fight like imbeciles (certainly Trump and Xi), we're all screwed. At least in America we can - and will - get rid of trump, most likely in Nov 2020. We will flush the congressional Repubs down the toilet with trump and try someone able to embrace truth and trust as foundational traits, or we're cooked.
America was the beacon for the world for 2 centuries. If we choose the "light", we will indeed have the rest of the world on the team while China will have to decide if they want to be on the field with the rest of us and together put out the raging fires of climate crisis, acidic oceans, decimated forests, and create the future we all seek - love, courage, truth, trust and the well being of life and the natural world. Anything less and we all lose. Good luck to us all.
6
After listing many many problems caused by China, Tom Friedman forgets the biggest and most important one. China is so big, so rich and so powerful that it can infect and corrupt and censor our free speech over time. It won’t be too long before these Chinese students start telling their American universities to remove anti-China books from the libraries, and I’m afraid that these universities will agree to do so.
4
It's time for a "Democracy First" approach. Why trade with authoritarian countries. Let's make our democratic allies stronger by dealing with them. The US consumer "made" China, lifting their billion people out of poverty, and now look what their one-party government is doing - suppression and corruption in Animal Farm style. They bit the hand that fed the. Cut them off.
4
It seems very clear to me that if a "digital wall" goes up between the US and China, China and anyone who decides to join them are going to be the losers. We are getting WAY too quick to worry and write op eds about the possibility of China being ascendant. As Krugman says, "the most open systems win." We are still the most open system. China is trying to copy some appealing details of our system but the underlying structure is still rotten to the core and it is not getting better.
If a successful entrepreneur in your country can have her career ended because she publicly criticizes the government, your system is not going to end up on top.
2
I'm thinking the world is not as flat as you tried to convince everyone it was.
3
While Friedman’s final metaphor about two apes fighting while the forest is burning is apt, it is most unfortunate that his piece—by not placing this issue in a wider context of global political alliances (not just markets)—is analogous to a spouse who spends a $1000 a month on alcohol and tobacco who tells his wife that they are broke because she doesn’t know how to manager her budget.
The USA is having to choose between an alliance with authoritarian dictatorships of one stripe (Russia, Vietnam, Midddle East & Central European autocrats, likely right-wing dictators in Latin America) in political and economic collaboration with the so-called Democracis (India, Canada, Mexico, Western Europe, possibly Thailand, Singapore, Philippines, etc) OR an alliance with authoritarian China and its vassles throughout Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia.
The ugly “real politique” truth is that the neo-con utopian fantasyof “nation building” has completely failed and the remaining democracies are going to have to choose between one alliance of anti-human rights, anti-transparent, anti-freedom of speech, anti-liberty totalitarian tyrants or another.
I’m not qualified enough to suggest which strategy (Russia/India versus China) is better. But where Friedman’s piece descends into irrelevance is by not looking at the current “detangling” with China as a possible informed or unintentional choice of which bands of thugs we are going allign with over the next 20-50 years.
1
Can't recall President Obama doing a thing about China.
Or Friedman criticizing him for his inaction.
4
Tom, you're mixing up and confusing two different types of people - bright, enterprising Chinese who want to be Americans, and bright, enterprising Chinese who want to take the best America has to offer and export it back to China. It's important that we're able to recognize which is which.
75
Does anyone remember when Japan threatened to overtake the US as the planet's biggest economy and the subsequent threats of tarriffs and the Plaza Accord? Interesting that the same negotiator, Lighthizer, is also involved in the negotiations with China.
6
How about we stop buying new cellphones every single year and we won't need to worry about what's embedded within the technology? The business as usual approach to economics in the age of climate crisis is disheartening. Are we still fetishsizing mass production of junk?
3
Sorry, but China is the most self-actualizing population on earth and organized themselves towards individual betterment through education and handwork. They are essentially indomitable and are aligned in culture, enterprise and consumerism. They build things because they want things. Notably, they can build anything and (regardless of published numbers) grow at a double digit pace. The numbers of engineers and scientist are exponentially doubling every few years. Lastly, they print money as adroitly as Western countries, as well. Their need to gain technology advantage through shenanigan is all but over in many areas (Supercomputing, for example) and now rely on nationalism and numerical advantage. Fewer Chinese are in Poverty than comparative Western societies as a important note of citizenship and alignment of society with government. The West is loosing because we cannot care for the sick, educate everyone that is qualified for advanced education or build a new tunnel under the Hudson River or dismantle Trump.
8
You can discuss the problems with China now, all you want, but solving them won't even remotely begin until we have a thinking president. Everything Trump touches goes south.
I would like to hear Buttigieg discuss his.
5
Amusing that apparently the US has to change her nasty ways, but China? Well, China can just keep on Charlie-Sheen-Winning I guess.
This whole editorial sounds a lot like someone saying we shouldn't separate a crackhead from their crack-dealer, because the flow of money (any flow of money) is good for the local economy.
No thanks.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me 30 years in a row? There are no words."
5
"....I still believe that the most open systems win — they get all the signals of change first, they attract the most high-I.Q. risk-takers/innovators and they enrich and are enriched by the most global flows of talent, ideas and capital. That used to be us."
True Mr. Friedman, but when outsiders take full advantage of your open house and rich larder only to take, purloin, and swipe for their benefit and ultimate goal of unrivaled domination, then you might start thinking of installing locks on your doors, closets, and drawers.
79
@Farokh I believe Friedman's statement about open systems. What he is talking about is not the same thing as free speech, but it is not unrelated. Everyone knows that there are downsides to free speech, but most of us believe in it anyway, because we think in the long run it will make us strong. The same is true of open systems. There are downsides, but in the end, they work.
An example: for many years Microsoft was a closed company. They did not believe in open systems. The company ended up stagnant. It could not grow, it could not change. Then along came Nadella, who embraced open systems, and boom: Microsoft prospered and soared back up to the top.
Open systems work. Open systems are quintessentially American.@Farokh I believe Friedman's statement about open systems.
An example: for many years, Microsoft was a closed company; they did not believe in open systems. The company ended up stagnant. It could not grow; it could not change. Then along came Nadella, who embraced open systems, and boom: Microsoft prospered and soared back up to
the top.
Open systems are not the same thing as free speech, but the two concepts are not unrelated. Everyone knows that there are downsides to free speech, but most of us believe in it because we think it makes us strong. The same is true of open systems. There are downsides, but in the end, they work.
One other related point: open systems, like free speech, are quintessentially American.
1
@Farokh: I believe Friedman's statement about open systems.
An example: for many years, Microsoft was a closed company; they did not believe in open systems. The company ended up stagnant. It could not grow; it could not change. Then along came Nadella, who embraced open systems, and boom: Microsoft prospered and soared back up to the top.
Open systems are not the same thing as free speech, but the two concepts are not unrelated. Everyone knows that there are downsides to free speech, but most of us believe in it because we think it makes us strong. The same is true of open systems. There are downsides, but in the end, they work.
One other related point: open systems, like free speech, are quintessentially American.
2
Naively written as if a media orchestrated and propaganda led future was not a real possibility.
5
As Kevin Phillips wrote in “Wealth and Democracy” (2002), every modern Western empire from the Spanish to the Dutch to the English began its decline by transitioning from wealth creation via manufacture and trade to wealth creation through investment and expansion of the financial sector. The result was a widening of the gap between a wealthy elite and the increasingly disaffected middle classes. The resulting decline in national general prosperity was quickly matched by a corresponding decline in national political power.
Is it too late for the US to say/admit "Ooops" and change course, and culture?
13
Friedman's thoughts are, as usual, right on target. But what, other than the profoundly hoped-for departure of Trump, can bring acceptable order out of this increasing chaos?
2
An important column, needing much more consideration from here.
I am grateful.
2
A PERFECT STORM is being created by to men with the same characteristics, one a dictator and the other one who likes to think and act like a dictator. Too bad we did not do more to encourage human rights in China, but now we have a leader who seeks to destroy human rights in America. Maybe the United Kingdom can save the world a third time!
2
So you finally admit that Neoliberal policies of the last 50 years have been a bust? I heard from a TPP lawyer once that he "was proud to have raised the standard of living in China and the TPP would help that along". Meaning, China's standard of living went up at the expense of the US, mostly on the backs the poor rurals and factory workers who. Utterly left behind by their own country, they turned to a demigod out of sheer spite. We have squandered all credibility throughout the world through Neoliberal arrogance. We don't even have a 2 party system anymore, we have one party and a criminal cabal. But Bloomberg to the rescue! UGH!
. . . . all of which illustrates, again, that we need the most capable leadership possible in this new reality. It must become possible for good candidates to be willing to run for office. Now, however, the only capability that counts is success in raising funds, and candidates must be willing to make that their top priority: you can't lead or have influence if you don't get elected. We need to be willing to rethink how we can attract the leaders we need, or we will continue to only get the leaders we deserve.
3
Trump has become the bogeyman that the left routinely blames all of this country’s problems on. Doing business with someone is not risky when you are giving him cash for a pair of shoes. But giving him your credit card (and all the data connected with it) is another matter. In that case, the integrity of the seller is critical. China is a seller (and buyer) that cannot be trusted with our personal data. And until they are trustworthy, neither Trump nor Obama can do much to mitigate the risk inherent in the relationship.
One stated downside of less immigration of tech talent from India is that we will lose our lead. Who decided that to be the goal of our policies? The Times just had an article about the water crisis in India. Would it be so bad if mire of their best and brightest stayed home to make their country better?
1
'Trump is not the American President that America deserves, but he is the American President that China deserves!'
- reminding you of your own wise words.
2
I am curious about the role American corporations had in spurring Trumps actions. For decades American business, despite any restrictions or other impediments, were happy to do more and more business in China. Has that stopped? If not things can't be quite as bad and the Trump America First crowd would imply.
1
Mr. Friedman is crying for a world that is no longer structurally possible. For a time, China sacrificed some of its great power longings to integrate globally, while the US allowed China an economic advantage because large US companies profited from the deal. However, as Mr. Friedman reluctantly admits, the relationship is moving away from trade toward great power rivalry. If Mr. Friedman were more honest about great power rivalry in general and the enfeeblement of China in the 19th and early 20th Centuries that has created a well of nationalism, as well as a defensive US driven by blue collar and rural voters in lagging economic regions, it would be apparent that China and the US will inevitably disconnect. The issue is not if, but how much. The rigidity and stupidity of Trump and Xi Jinping has only sped up the process.
Finally, I find Mr. Friedman's willingness to let China spy on our most intimate phone conversations and exchanges through Huawei software to be journalistic malpractice, especially in view of how Russia continues to foment division in the US with its bots on social media. Mr. Friedman should come clean and admit that the "Davos Period" whose oracle he served as for the last 20 years is coming to an end and that he has no clue about what should replace it.
7
In all the blame game, don't forget the role of American consumer. We increased our standard of living by getting addicted to cheap, but of acceptable quality - and lately, in the name of environmental stewardship, we are meekly accepting lower quality consumables compared to what we used to get 30 or 40 years ago - initially imported from Japan and later from China. In the process, we helped American companies decimate domestic manufacturing, almost caused the middle class to disappear, promoted stagnant wages, allowed wealth inequality to grow unchecked, and keep voting politicians who act against the greater good of the common man.
7
While both China and the US and Russia use their power and might to oppress and to let the Earth burn up, many individuals are trying to figure out how to co-exist with each other and the Earth and the species we share the Earth with.
2
While it's clear that we must engage China as a competitor and as a global rival, Trump's policies seem random and incoherent.
An important flaw is Trump's bilateral approach. Obama set up the TPP as long-term leverage against Chinese trading supremacy among Pacific Rim countries. Trump substituted for that a short-term, bilateral, "easy to win" trade war. His policies are hurting both countries and are resulting in damage to trading relationships for US business.
Businesses plan for the future and once a trading relationship is ruptured, alternatives are found and in many cases the former relationship cannot be recovered.
While we can't claim total purity, China's unfair trade practices and violations of human rights are egregious. With cooperation from our European allies and the TPP countries, multilateral pressure could effectively modify China's behaviors toward bringing them into compliance with rules and norms.
In the long term everybody benefits from following the rules of commerce, so long as they are enforced, and enforcement means collective action. Trump has shown himself either incapable of or undisposed to working with our friends and business partners.
He seems equally incapable of devising a long-term plan for engagement with China. Business needs stability, not policy-by-tweet.
2
Profits and growth eclipsed rational actions on internet security a long time ago. The proverbial genie is out of the bottle and won't be quelled now.
"Protracted visa delays and “harsh rhetoric against most immigrants,” Reif added, are sending a message that “the U.S. is closing the door — that we no longer seek to be a magnet for the world’s most driven and creative individuals.”
The Chinese do not have to deal with a political system dragged down by tens of millions of regressive ignorant citizens who can and do elect clones of themselves . (which is how people with low EQ and IQ define themselves -tribalism rules)
At every level of national decision making trumpism has produced dystopia and regression!
Countries like fish rot from the head down.
China will bury us in the long run!
Smart competence beats ignorant demagoguery EVERT time.
1
In the period since Xi emerged, 2012-13, China moved from very little private+public debt to debt levels on par with USA Europe Japan. This hurts.
Xi's strategy continues top down forced innovation. Please read 5 year plan speeches. Though there is plenty of extra-governmental innovation, significant innovation is still copy and paste.
Xi is a xenophobe low-dimensional national leader much like other leaders of his generation worldwide. Modi, Duterte, Erdogan, and Abe were elected similar time frame and are very nationalist relative to their predecessors. This is largely an echo of 1930s era leadership since we are in an echo of 1930s economics.
Read "document 9" articles. (NYT 2013 does a nice review when they discovered this gem from Xi's pre election authorship).
China ate USA's lunch while funding its housing market 2001 - 2011 and GFC 2008. So, we are sort of even. In that period, the kinder gentler Hu and Wen administration presided over low debt high accomplishment Chinese economic development. Zero foreign policy except writing checks.
China suffers from a greater demographic challenge than Japan.
In summary, Xi is in a sprint to retain party rule before demographics limit economic growth (next few years) and prosperity while capitalizing on the Hu Wen accomplishments. In an age of AI, there really is no choice but to charge ahead with strong foreign policy and debt led growth. In an age of nationalism, Xi is a puppet of stronger power in China.
"the global internet — so Beijing could censor all news and online internal discussions, freezing out Google, Facebook and Twitter"
"The global internet"... Meaning a handful of US companies which spy and manipulate their users. Every country in the world should censor Google, Facebook, and Twitter!
But I'm nitpicking. Friedman's inability to see the irony in calling a handful of monopolistic US companies "the global internet" is just one instance of a much more widespread problem: the culturally closed and locked, auto-centric way in which both the US and China see the world.
China and the US are rivals in a myriad ways, including ideological, economic, pollution, oppression of smaller countries (cf. the NYT's frighteningly biased coverage of the crisis in Bolivia), etc. But the single most important aspect of their rivalry is the competition for who can do the least amount of self-examination.
2
Maybe I'm being too naive but, why did Friedman NOT mention a single word about China having the greatest amount of U.S. debt held by a foreign country? Is this not an important issue? How can you "decouple" from your largest creditor?
135
@Michel
Indeed, and how can they decouple from you without tanking the value of their holdings in dollars? Is this a recipe for shared success, or a death grip?
15
@Michel
Good point.
Mutual assurance or mutual destruction?
14
@Michel I'm not concerned. The amount of US debt held by China has declined steeply over the past 10 years, as China sells dollars to maintain the facade that "everything's all right here". It will soon be a non-issue.
6
If all this globalization and trade is so great for the world, why do so many people I know want to buy locally as often as they can? Why do they want to support workers in their own communities, know that products were made in healthy and humane ways, and obtain products through the least carbon-extractive ways possible?
1
I don't know who you know but most Americans are eagerly buying China product from Wal-Mart and Amazon. While the working class white voters of Trump's base rally around the anti China rhetoric, they were happy to abandon U.S. producers for marginally lower prices, (and American producers were happy to shift production for lower wages, including the Trumps.) American consumers were the drivers of China's economic ascendancy. And the likes of Friedman were the cheerleaders for this process without any concern for the resulting economic dislocation because we could list our apartments on Airbnb or drive for Uber.
2
Here's a sobering thought. China and India both have more college graduates that we to total citizens. The bell curve makes this outcome certain just as a function of population. If we choose to wall off America to Asia's best and brightest, they will still excel in their scientific and technology fields, just not in America. We need them to stay competitive in the world.
1
Benefitting “the world” in the last forty years? Catastrophic dependency on fossil fuels and the socially, politically catastrophic extreme of inequity not seen for 100 years in developed countries? Your “globalization” was so poorly designed and implemented that it contained all the seeds of its own collapse and the degradation of state, ecosphere, and life right around the world.
4
Friedman's analysis is predicated on false assumptions. He writes, "Because the peace, prosperity and accelerations in technology and globalization that have so benefited the world over the past 40 years...." I will leave it to others to do the numbers, but it seems to me that the many "little" wars (e.g. Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chad, etc.) belie the claim that the past 40 years have been peaceful.
More questionable is the tacit assumption that "accelerations in technology" during that period are an unmitigated good that have "benefited the world." Yes, the technological developments have served to "disrupt" the status quo ante, but Friedman seems to have bought into Silicon Valley's self-aggrandizing mantra that "disruption equals progress" (a notion which, among other things, made Trump's 2016 candidacy seem acceptable to many people.)
From my perspective what has primarily been accomplished is the democratized ability to perpetuate lies as truth, the dependence of advanced societies on extraordinarily vulnerable infrastructure, and the commoditization of privacy.
While Friedman writes with angst about nation states, he ignores the fact that what the technology has done is allow non-state actors, whether groups or individuals, to wreck havoc and engage in consequent blackmail in a way the world has never seen. After all, who needs suicide bombers once there are drones and self-driving cars? And 3-D printers producing arms will make gun laws useless.
1
I read yesterday that by using each country’s individual poverty lines, China has 30M living below theirs and the US has 37M living below ours.
China has at least 800M more people than we do.
What does that say about our respective projections?
2
One of the comments was worth sharing broadly here:
Yes, the US was a leader in stimulating the growth in Asia. Nixon 'opened' China to the world and Deng's visit with his cowboy hat and commentary" it is glorious to be rich' was the beginning of the US and others to bring business, jobs and tech to China. And similarly with India. Did you notice the huge amount of tech companies in India where so much of the US and Western world software skills are purchased from?
We were a catalyst for their growth--big time. But sadly, the Chinese didn't play fair with poor trade policies-shutting out US companies from getting foothold to 'sell' their services and products and worse cyber crime. I think America is feeling pretty bad about all this. thus the ascendancy of trump.
However, what Trump and others are missing is our real key to the future: it is not this misguided trade war but the stimulus of future technologies that will/are market leading economic engines like Greentech/AI and so on. And yes, the US bread basket of high quality food stuffs, generally untainted by nasty chemicals or bacteria.
Green tech will be a trillion dollar market and yet this president want to bring back coal.
However, my guess is more politicians are kinda brain dead on all this, in both parties.
3
I wonder how many commentators have set foot in China. If you did and talked to the people you would relize that China doesn't need the Us, yes decoupling will be painful but it will be done gladly and seeing their technological and social trajectory, China has already won, there's no stopping them now. Plus the europeans, still the biggest economic block in the world, last I checked, is only happy to fill the void the US left in China. If you wonder which side of the wll the Euros will be, I can tell yout hey will be both side but if pushed to decide, they will decide China, Trump made clear to everyone that the US cannot be trusted anymore.
4
This essay points to the challenges of the second half of this century: well-informed leaders working together to address global warming and reconfiguring our trade interactions to everyone's benefit. We need smart, sophisticated leaders to work out the details and reconfigure how the global economy can evolve and progress, not regressive vulgarians like Xi and Trump.
3
The Prime Minister of Singapore said recently, "Don't make us choose." (between the US and China)
Countries of the Asia Pacific like NZ have free trade deals with China. We have no such deal with the US. China is our main trading partner.
We watch in dismay as the US unravels and disregards its old allies.
5
I respectfully disagree with your comments about China "stealing" all that technical information from America. American corporations willingly GAVE that to them. The CEO's and other boardroom denizens were salivating over the opportunity to access all that sweet sweet cheap slave labor in China, and part of the deal allowing them to do so and reap massive profits was that they had to "share technology" with the Chinese, who then folded it into their long term plans for economic development. William Greider's excellent 1990's book, "One World, Ready or Not" outlines specifics of these deals.
China didn't STEAL anything. American corporations GAVE it to them, figuring that it might well destroy US manufacturing but they would by then have a firm foothold in Asia, the new market they had already set their sights on.
6
A pessimist might note that the US will have a hard time competing with China for the most intelligent students simply because China has at least a billion people. compared to about 330 million Americans. In statistical studies of the distribution of scores on the SAT, GRE, and other tests of cognitive abilities, only about one person (1%) out of a thousand will score three standard deviations about the mean score (assuming a one-tail test and other assumptions). Thus, if we look just at the highest scoring students (i.e., 1% of students) and the number of students who do that well, China, with its population of a billion will have three times as many super-smart students than the US does, given that there are about a third of a billion Americans.
1
Most enlightening concept I’ve read in a long time: “China is our economic competitor, economic partner, source of talent and capital, geopolitical rival, collaborator and serial rule-breaker. It is not our enemy or our friend.” Eye opener!
3
China had a choice. Slave labor for the West or "steal"(learn) so that she could free herself. American companies were all too eager to exploit cheap labor with few protections when it came to safety or work conditions. All too eager to accept technology transfer because it wouldn't hurt the bottom line this year. Now, everyone is crying foul because China has learned enough. But it's too late. Decoupling may be the best thing for China as she may be ready to move ahead on her own. Sadly, the same cannot be said for us, accustomed as we are to have others do the heavy lifting. We talk about limiting students. We should be worried about when they no longer want to come. A great deal of actual science is done by grad students, they are no just sitting at lectures. Who is going to do the work of science then? Surely not the American snowflakes focusing on leadership in our schools. The ones with the ever dwindling math scores who feel unsafe when they are corrected. Nope, not them. God help us.
4
Friedman's naivete is stunning. America's trade surpluses and technological open door policies have helped China become a military juggernaut that will be much harder to contain than the Soviet Union ever was. Who exactly is going to defend Hong Kong or Taiwan when the PRC decides it's time for "reunification?" Did he perchance miss the military parade commemorating the country's 70th anniversary? Nationalism will always trump trade considerations, so Trump's "a trade deal is just around the corner" that we've been subjected to for the last year is as plausible as his "I'll release my tax returns after the audit." Bottom line: There is no trade deal, so the delay is meant only to get him through the '20 election. (The stock market has so far apparently bought that hook, line, and sinker.) In any case, when push comes to shove, most of the world will still line up with the U.S. A digital divide will be the least of our problems, though.
2
You mean trade deficits.
The US/China split was an inevitable market based anti-trust action, eventually ending the US tech hegemony.
As long as no one starts shooting, the competition will be good.
The US has been a selfish and naive actor in relationships with China. China as been an intelligent but bad faith actor from the beginning. Unless China changes, then it is better for the US to decouple from China. If we have to feel the pain of more expensive goods, from t-shirts to smartphones, then so be it. If we don't, then the disciplined, long-term Chinese strategy is going to win out. It already is doing so.
2
To disengage is to guarantee that China and the US will become major adversaries.
In the long long view, this will be harmful for all the people living on this globe.
It is the politicians in charge of China, and their quest for total power over the minds and lives of their people, who are the real villains in this case. But truly, are they that much different than the Republicans in this country who create rules to keep down the people while benefiting themselves and the 1%?
The next president must invest greatly and bring together all free minded people to counteract any dictators or the Communist Party. TPP, NATO, should be strengthened. Even Russia, whose people are closely aligned with the US's Western values, should be courted and brought into the fold.
2
So who's going to stand up to China on the "American" issue of human rights? That can be done only from a position of strength. Our know-nothing President is pushing our allies away, and without our allies the numbers say we are losing relative strength..China is turning out 8 times as many STEM grads as the U.S. every year. Our leadership is not guaranteed by our head start. In any competition where your competitor outweighs you, you have to fight smarter. Not happening under Trump.
2
Trump ceded the field to China on his first day in office, when he scuttled the Trans Pacific Partnership.
3
Once this decoupling is complete, what's to prevent China from cashing out all the US debt they currently own? After all, if their industries are not reliant on the US for markets and/or suppliers, its not to their detriment for our economy to collapse.
2
@Laura
China’s US debt holdings are a valuable commodity. It’s not in their interest to trash that asset. On the other hand, they could do significant damage to our economy if they stopped buying treasury securities. As I understand it, our interest rates would have to go up significantly to attract enough investors to fund our government operations.
2
First, Trump is an existential threat to the US and the world order. That flows directly from his role as Putin’s puppet in the White House and otherwise for sale to the highest bidder.
Next, while the world’s two foremost superpowers have to reach an equitable detente, they also need to work collaboratively on solutions to the world’s foremost problems: global warming and overpopulation.
Lastly, the US would be in far better position to appropriately restrain China if we are tightly integrated with our allies in the East and West. That means the E.U. and the TPP are essential organizations to coordinate with or participate in.
See item number one for why we’re getting nowhere with our real priorities.
5
It is way past time that we start being more concerned about the people being left behind in America. I understand that China is cheap labor and a huge market. At some point, our unfettered capitalism has to stop chasing the most money and start chasing the most benefit to all our citizens. It is easy for me to say that I am willing to pay more for products if they are made here because I can afford to but I understand why many of our citizens can only afford cheaper products. They wouldn’t if we as a people; government, business and individuals; invested in our own through education, job-training and job creation. Unfortunately we have a business leadership that just realized they need to take their employees, consumers and country needs in the same consideration as their shareholders and top executives and a government that talks big but is cutting the services people need to succeed.
3
@Publius
Trade, done properly, is a big benefit to both countries. It forces companies to innovate and compete at the highest levels, and consumers benefit from more and better product at cheaper prices. Trade also helps tamp down nationalism and military adventurism.
How countries treat their own citizens is a separate but also a related issue. Of course one’s trade policy affects one’s labor market. But an overall labor policy can do right by workers if its done properly, and if workers aren’t considered just an expendable commodity.
1
The Democratic candidates will have to have a good answer to trump on the China trade war. While I think Trump's efforts have been fruitless and miscalculated (He should have partnered with our historical allies throughout Europe), I do believe most Americans see him as simply being tough on China while previous Presidents were not. I think there are a lot of good answers but they have to be easy to understand and to emphasize a plan to compete with China and create jobs.
1
Firstly, I am not a fan of Trump, he has a keen instinct for identifying problem issues or areas, but probably due to being raised poorly, he has the worst ways of attacking those problems. So the US has to watch out on that front.
Secondly, there has been a chorus of phonies, including our Mr. Friedman, who have been selling Americans on a benign and peaceful China. Anyone who is objective and knows basic Chinese History knows they are a proud and inward looking society. They believed for millennia they were the center of the Universe and it led to their belittling by the British. The Communist party was built on the resentments stemming from the failure of the Chinese elites - be they Warlords or Mandarins (advisers/ministers/scholars). They have been building their nation to exact revenge and get back to their (imagined) center of the Universe status.
But using cheap Chinese labor, unlimited government support and lax pollution rules, American companies conned American workers and made huge profits for their execs and shareholders. Politicians and press have been guided more by the money than by national interest (I said more and not exclusively, pls note.)
Now Mr. Person of Mass Destruction, number one salesman of Globalism is spinning a new tale.
This conflict between China and the US was inevitable. We have made our enemy strong while weakening ourselves.
In the end, China will fail, Communism or not Totalitarianism will be their downfall. We need to fix us, US.
3
For the most part, as an economic system, China is a thriving capitalist entity. However, there are state owned and state supported companies. Perhaps totalitarian would be a more accurate description. If the CCP demands a company must turn over info to the gov’t, the company has no choice, but to comply. There are obvious dangers resulting from that, particularly from a company like Huawei. Integration of the US/China economies was thought of as formidable deterrent to war. Instead of mutually assured destruction by nuclear weapons that kept US and the Soviet Union from going to war, we substituted mutually assured destruction of US and Chinese economies as a deterrent. That integration may be unraveling now. It might be best for both countries to be less dependent on each other, but a more drastic decoupling poses its own inherent dangers.
I hope the Times and other outlets will tamp down Trump/impeachment news in favor of informing readers of other important news. I have tuned it out. We elected our Congressional representatives to act in the best interest of Americans. Most of us do not understand what is at stake and the media is not helpful. Let Congress do its job released from under the media microscope. Voters will voice their choice of how the drama played out at the polls.
@Gimcrack: Congress is supposed be the Board of Directors of USA, Incorporated. I don't think it knows.
If the two pillars of our Democracy are really Truth and Trust, our fate was sealed long ago.
1
When China was a backwards country coming into modernity, when it built products for the world with its vast underpaid labor force, we patronized it willingly. China was nothing to fear, it was basically subservient to our needs. Suddenly, China is no longer our employee, China is a rival, and America fears rivals. Why do you think we have the world's largest military?
I think this view is too US centric -- I spend a lot of time in China and the news every day is about Chairman Xi building alliances, investing, loaning and garnering resources with the rest of the world while Trump belittles and insults -- The US is of monotonically decreasing importance
2
Let's hope no one is crazy enough to fantasize that we could ever "win" a real war with China. Obviously, they would annihilate us on the ground in Asia. Obviously, they would take out our navy like so many toy ships with their missiles. Obviously, in a nuclear exchange they would wipe our cities off the face of the earth and we'd wipe off theirs. But that would leave hundreds and hundreds of millions of Chinese out in the countryside--compared to how many Americans? China is simply going to be the sole superpower in a few decades. It's economy will be much bigger than ours. We'll be the new British has been, but without any "special relationship" to cushion our fall. Let's hope Americans and their leaders can take the fall without inflicting too much suicidal damage on us and the world.
@Fred White
Nonsense.
If it came to a total war, for whatever reason (an omnipotent space alien demands it), the US would just run a distant blockade using the USN and our blue water sub fleet (China's antishipping missiles are limited in range) and we have an unsinkable aircraft carrier called the "USS Japan" right next door, plus allies near the straits. China is a net importer of food. Like certain other continental opponents of the US and UK over the last century, a blockade starves them, of food, of fuel, of trade. This has literally been a foundational strategy of the US since the Anaconda plan in the ACW, right through the World Wars. The Brits have had this as their Number 1 stragety for centuries. We easily have the ships and subs and political capital for it.
If China throws nukes? Well, they have 280. We have 4000. Do the math. I mean: do the actual math. It takes multiple nukes to even realistically flatten one city. This isn't a fantasy nuke like in pop culture, but I mean, hit up the actual physics sims online and see for yourself in real empirical numbers. TLDR? The US is much better situated, currently anyway, to survive a war, even a nuclear one. China is not the USSR (which literally had 18 times as many nukes, 18 TIMES).
That's assuming, again, an omnipotent alien forced the two into a total do-or-die war for his/her/xit's amusement or something.
1
Gee--if Hank Paulson says it, it must be true. Coming from the architect of the disaster of US/China relations, relayed by one of the main media-apologists for this relationship..well, it would be funny, if it wasn't so obtuse.
And then there's this astounding statement from Mr. Friedman: "all we talk about now is Donald Trump." Is this like a Soviet-era piece on the front page of Pravda, directed not at the readers but at the Boss. Maybe a way of suggesting to the editor and publisher of The Times that maybe, just maybe, they should stop building the newsroom around one story--the horrors of Trump.
Nah. Too subtle. They'll never get it.
1
Not sure what Friedman is trying to say.
The column seems shallow , reflexive rather than reflective.
And how do you write on the subject without ANY mention of Trump pulling out of Trans Pacific Partnership as his first official act?
1
Friedman’s love affair with Communist China is palpable. When talking about walls and China let’s not forget the walls around their concentration camps to re-educate Muslims. Seems that should be of primary concern. Can’t understand why Friedman always talks around the most significant issues.
@thomas jordon: China is the one country in the world concerned about overpopulation, which many religious minorities defy.
1
I hope you are not saying that your support of population control justifies China’s concentration camps.
2
@ RD Under which president was the source code to Windows given to Chinese and Russian intel? The data is out there look it up.
@Rick Tornello: Linux is open-source.
1
@Steve Bolger LINUX has nothing to do with the subject. IT'S WINDOWS,WINDOWS WINDOWS that is the key to the comment and the time period and the follow on results from the actors as a result of the actions by the then current president.
Then look and see just what these intel agencies stared doing. here's a lead for you: JANES, Aviation Week, Foreign Policy around 2005/2006. You might need paper copy just in case the digital ones have been censored.
Just want to say that it's a major fault of media that so much, too much, way too much, news is about the current occupant of the White House. Keep on writing about everything except him. He cannot stand if no one writes about him or ignores him.
1
That the world political economy has realigned in the past 40 years shouldn't surprise anyone. And the barriers between the hegemonic powers are not new either. China is grudgingly coming to terms with the implications of it's new role in the world and has regressed recently in the hope of keeping it's obsolete power structures in placed but, in the long run, it can't. While, at the same time, this country is just following the counterproductive playbook Russia has injected after decades of effort into our, likewise antiquated, body politic. Neither of these trends can last because the challenges we confront as a species simply won't allow it. Natural selection in the global power struggle dictates that both countries will open up or become irrelevant. The real question is will the EU ever mature and take a leading role in the world?
1
@CR Hare: Power struggle for what?
Karl Marx is laughing at the US. He warned that the capitalist will do anything for profit. This problem that we have and will only get worse was caused by the greedy US capitalists that only looked at the billion customers to sell to and the cheap labor they will provide. They, not the government, could have stopped this in its tracks by insisting on human rights as defined by most democracies and fair worker compensation, and never agree to technology transfers on a mass scale. Pretty soon we will be driving Chinese cars, flying in Chinese jets just like now when we fix anything that requires a screwdriver or a drill we use Chinese tools and Chinese parts. The funny thing about that is the only thing made in China that is any good is the plastic packaging it comes in. It is harder to open than a bank vault.
8
Climate change is the trunk issue, every other issue branches off of it. And the US absolutely must partner with China, India and all other major energy users to halt burning of fossil fuels and save the planet. Every other issue is secondary.
This should be Dems main focus in this campaign, an issue they own compared with Trump and GOP deniers.
1
We have humanity in common.Everything. Else is different.
Skin color,culture, political structure ,respect for gender,,
And religious beliefs.Honestly, I don’t know how we made it
This far.Good luk.
1
We got so used to cheap labor and products from China, we let the wolf into the chicken cage. Now President Trump is fighting this problem. Not going to be easy but we need be on a level playing field.
Good point regarding the need for America to build friendships. China’s remarkable success in doing so over the past 20
years doesn’t make them our advisory but simply highlights our current administration’s focus on playing the zero sum game where America “wins” and all our neighbors, allies and potential trading partners loose.
Friendships never happen accidentally. They're the consequence of shared dreams and common experiences. Just ask any Chinese of any age who the Flying Tigers were. We should remember that during World War II American and Chinese forces fought side by side and won. The Chinese certainly haven’t forgotten America’s support to end their brutal occupation. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/northamerica/2019-05/15/c_138058566.htm
@James
That's some pretty selective history you have there.
Remember the Korean War? China wasn't so friendly to us then; in fact they killed thousands of US soldiers and brutally tortured them - waterboarding was one of the PLA's (Peoples Liberation Army) favorite methods. Very nice.
China also supported Vietnam in the early 1960's, and when that went sour, provided arms and advice to Pol Pot, Cambodia's genocidal leader in the 1970's.
It didn't stop there. China started building artificial islands in the South China Sea about 10 years ago, and routinely harasses US Navy ships freely navigating there, and has illegally established a "9 dash line" that basically makes the entire SCS from Vietnam's coast to Indonesia a Chinese possession. The UNCLOS ruled it illegal a couple years ago, but China ignored it.
Yes, coupled with their economic predation, IP theft and closed markets, that's some friends we have there in China.
Tom seems to be a bit naive as he writes this. Admitting that the technology stealing finally means something, that dealing with a unbalanced competitor and appeasing them wasn't the right strategy when it comes to China (note, we don't have these problems with others do we?). So, someone finally stepped up to end this unequal relationship was not supported by the past administrations, making the issue more difficult to solve each year. On immigration, using the Indian's as example, maybe they are cautious about coming here due to the incessant harping by the media about how un-welcomed they would be here, when the President's tactics are against illegal immigration, not the programs that would help them come here. The press has created a picture of incredible lack of acceptance of all immigrants here in America, when it's not the truth. Your rhetoric falls short Tom.
1
How does the bipartisan abandonment of TPP fit into this?
3
China is a communist nation, the dreaded C-word. I thought innovation was stifled by communism, and the only way forward was cut-throat, sink-or swim capitalism. Maybe the real World-shaking news is that Capitalism isn't the only way forward, because in terms of technology and manufacturing output China is right on our heels, either they are speeding up or we are going backward.
91
@Lonnie China is CINO (Communist in Name Only). Look at the thousand-year history of Chinese mercantilism and competition both domestically and in the diaspora. Most of the Chinese people I know are either in business or would like to be. Collectivism was a blip of thirty years in a millenium of history.
30
@Lonnie
China has a political party that is in total control. That party calls itself Communist, but in fact, could just as well be called the Republican Party. Its economic policies could not be farther from the true Marxist idea of Communism. China is capitalist economy on steroids with an authoritarian government.
65
@Dan Woodard MD: China has been governed by a meritocratic bureaucracy spanning dynasties.
14
I would point out that the US has friendly relations and peaceful competition with every democratic country on the planet. The ball is in China's court on this topic. Despite the uneasy and tenuous relation we currently have with China, we won't progress much past where we are now unless China listens to its people and democratizes. To be sure, the ruling authority in countries rarely surrender, or even share power willingly. But that's exactly what the protests in Hong Kong are about. Moreover, the echoes of Tienamen Square reverberate, certainly in Hong Kong, but I suspect in many other parts of China as well, the effigy of Lady Liberty having been burned into the memories of millions of Chinese citizens. President Xi has consolidated power to such an extent, that China is now a Communist (in name only) dictatorship. And I believe Lord Acton's dicta, that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Hence, I posit that Xi is taking a dangerous, although predictable step.
Governments are evaluated, if you will, two ways, by their legitimacy and their effectiveness. Deng Xiaoping, in his wisdom, demonstrated the effectiveness of China's government by showing Karl Marx the door and welcoming in Adam Smith. The unprecedented regeneration of China as a world power, lifting untold millions out of poverty, was vivid testament to the effectiveness of such a move away from "collectivization" and other Marxist nonsense. But is the CCP, headed by XI, legitimate?
2
@TRA: The legitimacy of US democracy has foundered on the Electoral College, and the arbitrary radical and segregating malapportionment of the Senate, with its responsibility for vetting treaties and appointments.
3
@TRA
I would point out that although the US has good relations with most nations, Trump is working hard to destroy that essential element of our foreign policy. Cozying up to North Korea, Putin and other autocrats while antagonizing our traditional allies, like western Europe, is a recipe for economic and political disaster. Example - criticizing Europe for letting the US carry the financial burden of Ukraine aid, when, in fact, they provide 3 to 4 times the financial aid that we do.
1
@Steve Bolger
I don't disagree with what you said here, but rather than a "pure" democracy, we have a republic. Constructing the Constitution involved a lot of compromise, which is how we ended up with such undemocratic features as the Electoral College, counting slaves as 3/5 of a person for apportionment purposes, two US Senators per state, and so on. Nevertheless, it is a government that has thrived, along with the country as a whole, for over two centuries now. Other than the Civil War, I feel that the current occupant of the White House presents the biggest political threat we've ever experienced. It remains to be seen whether we can overcome it, but if the November 2018 elections are any indication, and I think they are, the American voting public, not the US Senate, will save us from ourselves. That's legitimacy.
1
There has been and continues be a shortage of men and woman willing to put in the time and work to be educated and obtain advanced degrees in Science and Technology. Both Chinese and Indian student have fill that void. My own research in the molecular biology of infectious disease was fueled by hard working serious Chinese and Indian students; there were just too few American Students applying for positions in my laboratory. The number of applicants from China applying for grad school and postdoctoral training has had a downward trend in the past few years. The reasons American youth are unwilling to fill this need in our scientific research and engineering effort are many but will ultimately mean the loss of American economic dominance in the world.
@Pat Cleary
Maybe someday soon China will start importing our American students of Gender Studies and mid-20th century African Art (but not late or early 20th century African art, only mid) to fill the critical holes in their economy! Any day now. Gotta get those Gender Studies majors.
The US, in order to retain what it sees as its destiny of world domination on military and economic matters has always developed the boogey man that compels its citizens to become cheerleaders. The US talks about unfair advantage by China but chooses to forget the unfair terms it imposes on third world nations in economic terms, pillaging of resources and it's established so-called right to interfere militarily at its own will because anything any nation does that does not include US interest (as defined by the US) is then an enemy of the US. Now people are whining about unfair trade practices and stealing of intellectual resources by China. We need to remember that it was the US who tried to destroy the communist system in China and having done so, now got a China that through a hybrid system is now challenging the US. That happened with Russia and it will happen with any other nation as long as we believe we are the chosen nation. It is time we really had a round table approach to the world. The UN does not work because the world powers have veto power. I am simply suggesting that we get away from the notion that we are the only ones in the world deserving of leading the world. At this time in history we suffer from the demands of an egomaniac who wears as red hat that continues to demand that the world kneel at our feet. Let's build a world of cooperation because if we do not, we all will surely sink.
1
The iron curtain was constructed to control people who did not want to be controlled. The Berlin wall was constructed to keep people in who wanted to get out. This situation is neither and the analogies will only impede dealing with the problems.
We have seen this movie before. But most Americans do not know our own history.
The Trump administration is an echo of the Know Nothings, the Luddites, and the Gilded Age.
6
Dear Tom,
Please convince M Trumps' voters that "Because the peace, prosperity and accelerations in technology and globalization that have so benefited the world over the past 40 years were due, in part, to the interweaving of the U.S. and Chinese economies"..........
I don't think ....that they think ...that they have benefited
And also ... please convince Greta and her followers of the benefits for Mother Nature
2
Remember TPP. It excluded the chinese. Bernie was against it and Trump killed it. Everybody should try to have a nice holiday.
3
Learn Chinese. Americans can't unify around anything. Chinese group think will win out over western individualism and private property.
Americans can't even figure out how to vote in their best interests. Misinformation abounds and the headless monster will implode on it's own - probably with a great deal of commotion.
2
Prior to the 1980s, there were certain industries deemed essential to US independence - I don’t remember the whole list list but steel production was one. We learned these lessons the hard way during WW II. The we got complacent and greedy. And allowed profit to over ride national security. And here we are - struggling to close the barn door after the horses got out.
2
Let's consider a less emotional, more rational assessment of US/China trade relations!
Trade has greatly benefited both nations. Americans are better dressed, and our offices, workshops, and homes are better equipped because of the variety and abundance of low-cost, good quality, shopper-appealing goods from China.
Millions of American service jobs have been created to market and distribute Chinese-made goods. The new service jobs provide better pay and working conditions than the low-end manufacturing jobs that are being displaced by imports.
China applies its profits from international trade to building a spectacular physical and social infrastructure that has lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens from poverty and desperation to prosperity and security.
China vigorously cultivates its international trade relations, whereas the US vigorously shrinks American export markets by imposing politically motivated trade sanctions and trade disrupting tariffs.
American industry fails to compete successfully in domestic and world markets. Our ever-growing trade deficits are caused by the continuing preference of American consumers for imported products.
The US government and media routinely try to explain away China's success as "unfair trade practices". Disparaging China will not forgive, address, or improve our own internal political, infrastructure, and manufacturing problems.
Jealousy is not a satisfactory substitute for performance!
4
Trump puts on a charade for people to see, so we don't see the noxious sausage he and his minions are making behind the curtain.
1
Great piece, thank you. You are on target. and this war isn't to be won for the world. It will tear at the fabric of uniting the world. But perhaps that can be a blessing, if we step back and decide on the rules under which we might trade, interact, without being unfair to others. Balance in all things. seems the better course...which ware not doing.
2
Friedman is right that we benefit more than we suffer from an open system of exchange of people and ideas. It is ironic that a perennial rule-breaker like Trump is lecturing the Chinese about following the rules. They have a China First policy, and have had one for as long as I can remember. We need to build a world-wide alliance of free countries, not to imitate our rivals over there by adopting an America First policy and cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world.
1
Friedman refers to "the peace, prosperity and accelerations in technology and globalization that have so benefited the world over the past 40 years" as if everyone in the US has benefited. Actually most people in the US have benefited little from globalization, nor has it even caused an increase in GDP growth rate. Wages have been stagnant since around 1970. Other factors have been involved in this, but the more recent opening of trade with China has certainly not improved things for US workers or led to improvement in US production. Any meaningful discussion of globalization, particularly as it relates to US politics, would take account of these very important facts.
2
This does not sound entirely like a bad thing.
Trump's America First Policy kicked off the great decoupling. There is no turning back even if he lose in 2020.
Paulson noted “For 40 years, the U.S.-China relationship has been characterized by the integration of four things: goods, capital, technology and people.
Take them one by one since decoupling is the reality (1) Can Americans get all the goods they now buy from China elsewhere? (2) Is China self-sufficient in raising capital to fund its growth? Is USA? Where do Venture Capitalists invest new money? (3) Technology advance depends on brain power of scientists and engineers. Which country graduate more scientists & engineers? Which country continue to fund their universities and R&D? (4) Although People is part of the Technology equation, there is another side of people interaction: to understand each other's culture. China is not holding back in understanding other cultures. Chinese tourists are everywhere. Now they stop going to USA. What about Americans? How many hold passport? Americans are getting more xenophobic and isolationist.
One statistics that pops out is the number of accomplished classically trained Chinese musicians on the world stage. On the most recent list international graduates of the Royal Academy of Music, the number of Chinese names is astounding. When you listen to them play Bach, Beethoven or Chopin, the whole idea of decoupling is idiotic.
1
We have developed a monster in China.They are our cold war
enemy, and our future opponent in the 3rd world war.
It all started by Nixon who opened trade with them & Russia to break through the Iron Curtain.
This also helped American Industry to escape labor Unions
& out source low priced labor,especially in China.
We have only ourselves to blame for the predicament we find ourselves in.Our greed made us a great economy,& may lead us to destruction.
1
Sadly the final sentence says it all.
1
There is a pattern of trumps ideological racist views that underscore his global economic policies. Indeed, "it is America first." but it is trumps "white America first." Domestic and global racism has permeated and fractured relationships that could have been.
"...so Beijing ... censor[s] all news and online internal discussions, freezing out Google, Facebook and Twitter." Consider how the policies of these companies have helped to tatter democratic norms in our country, and one has to think that the US might benefit from some digital wall building itself. "Wall building" might be too strong a term. What about "regulation"? Begin by applying truth in advertising regulations that apply to traditional media outlets.
2
Climate change is the really big news we are missing amidst all this other news that, by comparison, is relatively unimportant.
3
Trump and many of his followers think the U.S. is so exceptional we can go it alone in this world. By the time that idea has been proven false, we will be a backwater no one cares about.
2
They are busy building road! I hope these roads are not avenues to spreading their culture which is fused with despotism.
1
This is an outstanding description of the state of affairs between the USA and China. I am not sure how many US voters have seen this information clearly laid out. I certainly feel educated and enlightened and better able to make choices at the ballot box. This description also neatly shows how humans have divided the world into groups that hurl themselves at each other as though we aren't all connected by Life. Each side is right, the other wrong, no compromise, no trust, no truth. We see this in civil conflicts the world over. It is happening here in the US. It has always happened between men and women. Apes fighting? Apes don't do what we do, although chimp populations in certain locations are more aggressive if food is scarce. We are uniquely stupid creatures who divide the world into us and them. We are uniquely aggressive creatures who compete over who gets the last bite of pie as well as trade secrets and ways of thinking. If we ever grow past this way of being, we might have a shot at staunching the wounds we have inflicted on this world and each other. I hope we manage this feat of evolution before we off ourselves. https://medium.com/@teresadlonghawkes/emm-and-imm-ways-of-being-640c685dae7a
Mr Friedman is right to call China a rival rather than an enemy.
I'm no Asia scholar, but I spent 11 years self-employed in SE Asia, doing what I could then and now to read Asian history. I learned that China was an advanced country, in many ways, long before European countries. In the early 1400s, it sent out "Treasure Fleets", hundreds of eight-masted 400ft junks, to discover and chart the world, forge trade relations in every new land and install savvy Chinese merchants where practicable. Decades later, Europeans chose the slightly more objectionable system of colonization as a means of acquiring wealth.
Though not all of China was colonized, the bits that were did not leave Chinese with a top-notch opinion of Europeans. And the Chinese being history buffs, they won't soon forget colonialism, Opium Wars and the other transgressions. There's an element of 'payback time' at work.
In assaying the way China operates today, with all the wealth, influence and technology it can marshal, the West would be wise to consider China's trajectory toward 'great power' status, one that's been managed, stoked and applied for thousands of years. What's held it back until the last 30 or so were mere historical hiccups.
China will do everything it can to win at every game it plays. It will lie and steal and cheat, just as Western powers did, and still do, to China, and each other. Remaining mindful of this in all its complexity is crucial if the West is to remain relevant and powerful.
4
How quickly we forget the TPP. This would have been the first line of defense against Chinese domination. Hilary Clinton was wrong here and so was Donald Trump. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed and we have missed our moment. We now are reaping the consequences of our rash decision.
4
I work at a major STEM university in Computer Science. The United States remains a world leader in research universities. We attract the best and the brightest people from all over the world, including from China.
Many of them choose to stay in the United States and contribute to our nation, both in industry and academia. Those who return home take with them some of the American values they observed here, as well as goodwill toward the American people.
This is huge competitive advantage for the United States. I sincerely hope we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater, and lose our edge on this strength which is essential to the future of America.
Our leadership in this area is fragile, and all it would take to undercut it is a decade or two of the best and the brightest choosing to go instead to other countries.
5
Xi Jinping has decreed the creation of an "Ecological Civilization" (shengtai wenming 生态文明) as the goal of 'Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for the New Era'. As 'Nature Climate Change' reported, China's carbon pulse is currently peaking and expected to level off in 2020, years ahead of the timetable set at Paris 2015. The ripping sound you hear is also the sound of the one political system stuck in science denial and the other transitioning to sustainability. The forest is burning, yes, but the one tribe is pouring gasoline on the flames, while the other is fighting the fires.
4
A senior person from one of the big tech companies told me, at a conference in Toronto, Canada, that they were now hiring people in and around Toronto from countries that the US would not let in - Iran, China, Russia, Iraq - top minds and programmers who would have immigrated to the US and made their lives, in a good way, there if they could have. And the visas were being used for Canadians, who could still come to the US - hollowing out a generation of tech workers from the Universities there. Canada has woken up to this - they may not make moves fast enough to keep their tech enterprenuers and workers close, but the real point is that people are moving in waves because of this behavior too, and in ways we might not always expect.
1
There is one factor at work that the whole West seems to have ignored or forgotten: Chinese pride.
For centuries China lived in the shadow of Western colonialism, especially as expressed by the British Empire.
And ironically, the tempest in Hong Kong, formerly a British colony, is to a real degree a remaining symptom of Western hegemony over China.
In the 19th century the United States saw China as a cheap source of labor, and used imported Chinese men to build the railroads connecting the states at pretty much slave labor cost. While at the same time having saloons with signs that said "No dogs and Chinamen."
Should we be surprised if there is at least some sense of retribution today in China's emergence as a technology giant, able to overshadow the West in some key areas?
2
I agree that only a small portion of Chinese students are spying, but what bothers me is that the Chinese government has no qualms about choosing any one of the "good" ones and blackmailing and coercing them into spying as well. Authoritarianism is only good for the authority. Self determination helps everyone, and I would like my country (the US) to model and insist on equality before profit. Every day.
1
“Fighting without winning... winning without fighting” also applies nicely to the US and Russia. Buying our elections for a few rubles was the biggest bargain in the post-colonial era. I’d extend the time period for more than 20 years. My entire life has had a theme of this country spending capital and lives on unwinnable, completely unjustifiable war. Every tank, every plane meant diversions from education and technological progress. And guess what? Politicians and industrialists all embraced this model.
The wall between us and China is a structure whose time has come, but not for our benefit.
2
You exaggerate as always.
Most of us who read and think, can quickly see problems of far greater implications to the world and our species -- some that are existential.
Climate change comes to mind! Little progress and our own country, formerly a leader in the world on many issues, now has an administration filled with deniers. And we have started pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement!
Overpopulation comes to mind and that is not a myth, 7.7 billion and growing. it is a dangerous fact. Many persons on the earth, including some in this country, live in poverty, ignorance and have little future but pain and suffering.
Nuclear disaster. Not much needs to be said there. Particularly the part where we have a president who will casually yell at North Korea that we shall "wipe them off the face of the earth." Remember, NK is led by another madman with nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US. Extremely dangerous.
And you are concerned about some abstract U.S. China Divide.
Get some rest and sleep sir over the holiday.
1
A wall is called for, but it should be porous. We must have access to Chinese brainpower, suitably vetted. Since all people want freedom (yes the Chinese too, look at Taiwan) this calls for an immigration policy that favors global smart people. We should be importing people, exporting our values.
This administration is however unable to act coherently. Its racist mindset and hero-worship of Trump is jeopardizing our future.
2
Trump’s not smart to push away immigrants, openness creates wealth of ideas and the kind of teamwork that he doesn’t understand. And while his rash changes to trade make for lots of thrashing about, automation means we are moving towards a world where big factories are being replaced by local production. China will be the big loser, Trump or no Trump.
1
It's about time that the discussion of our relationship with China moves well beyond economics. Look at the near genocide that China is implementing in Xinjiang province, and has implemented in Tibet. Do we stand for anything anymore? Or was that just liberal democratic bluster all along?
4
Friedman's blithe assertion of how globalization (and U.S. China-trade liberalization) benefited everyone are characteristic of his often shallow, neoliberal style. It seems well known now that China exploited its new trade freedom without changing in ways that people hoped, and engaged in abusive trade practices to favor itself. Globalization itself helped people in some parts of the world, but looks to have hurt many U.S. workers, in ways that helped elect our modern abomination, President Trump, a bad result for workers and then for all of us. Friedman's inference that U.S.-China divide must be bad because it interferes with globalization is simply unwarranted. It is too bad when an influential source like Friedman simply ignores what are now well-established ideas on the problems of globalization when he thinks about these serious problems. I do think that in general Trump is a terrible occurrence for the United States, but as other writers have said, previous administrations have not faced up to the problem of China's exploitation of trade liberalization. Careless analyses like Friedman's do not help with this urgent problem.
Americans complain that China has stolen American technology.
Yes, indeed, the Chinese have.
But what no one asks why, how and when this happened.
We forget the reality of labor arbitrage.
American business fought tooth and nail against the cost of American workers.
The solution was to find the cheapest labor in offshore production facilities. In many cases, that shift in labor use involved exposing American technological secrets to Chinese experts in technology, businesses and governments to local observers.
In reducing labor costs in the US, big business ignored the risk of putting our technological gems under the very noses of those we now complain about.
What about now?
The Chinese no longer need OUR technology.
With a population of more than 1,436,050,411 people, that is just under a billion and a half , there are more than enough brilliant individuals than needed to do their own technological development.
They have learned enough from us to do their own development.
Shame on us!
1
The only way forward is decoupling. What Trump is doing now should have been done more than ten years ago. The evidence that China wouldn’t follow the rules emerged before the ink on the agreement of China’s ascension to the WTO was even dry. Clinton had to send Barshevsky back to Beijing because it was already backpedaling on its commitments. China got everything it wanted and more. Carter foolishly, with dollar signs in his eyes, severed relations with Taiwan. US policy makers have dumb and naive and bungled the most important foreign policy relationship in history because the because the have the same beliefs that the author does. China has kept its market for its domestic companies while the US has allowed itself to be hollowed out. Now, we rely on Chines products as well as Chinese expatriates most of whom share the “Chinese Dream.” What a perfect situation for the Communist Party of China.
3
Why should the world follow ‘your’ rules? China values co-operation and sharing of what the west calls IP and always has. IP laws translate to an individualistic, neoliberal view of success, and also a particularly short sighted one. China realises this, but Americans cling to the idea that simply results in massive, overpowering corporations determining your future to your own detriment. Ideas want to, and will be free. China embraces this and America tries to halt it. There is much to be learned here.
Those were the rules that the world agreed to, even China signed off on them. US policy makers, however, who helped to draft the rules were brainwashed by silly 18th century notions about trade and operated on the assumption that American advantages were unassailable.
1
Goodness, Gracious, Great Walls Afire!
China's "stealing of the intellectual property of U.S. firms — something we tolerated". We didn't just tolerate, we profited. Let's stop with the hypocrisy: China's GDP is made up of Dollars and Euros.
2
The Chinese: Smarter & tougher than Americans.
Not as fat. A smaller percentage are diabetic or pre-diabetic — somatic maladies that sicken ~100 million Americans per the CDC.
They have plenty of problems, but they likely win—short term.
Long Term? Future historians won't be looking back; they'll be looking for food — like Ukraine in the early 1930s when starved by Stalin. From historian Timothy Snyder's book, Bloodlands:
"The good people diey first. Those who refused to steal or prostitute themselves died. Those who gave food to others died. Those who refused to eat corpses died. ...
Countless parents killed and ate their children and then died of starvation anyway."
---
The world's economic problems are far more fundamental than China vs USA. That's short term.
People talk about infrastructure, but omit this infrastructure: Code.
Economists, pols & voters don't understand code in a physics, evolution & complexity context.
Code is fundamental Relationship Infrastructure in bio, cultural & tech networks—genetic language math religious legal monetary software, etc.
For survival, code's gotta match the environs.
eg
“The rule of thumb is that the complexity of the organism has to match the complexity of the environment at all scales in order to increase the likelihood of survival.” Yaneer Bar-Yam
The efficacy of our bio & cultural coding? It's being gutted by exponential complexity—that is, it's non-selectable.
eg
Sky & Ocean being armed with weapons of mass extinction.
3
Just wait, they will be just as fat as we are and less tough in 20 years.
"It is not our enemy or our friend."
Why is it that the left is so crazed about the Russian threat but is so ready to embrace China? Friedman makes the same mistake the West has been making with China for the past fifty years. We assume they think like us - they do not. China does not share our Western ideals on democracy or freedom (just ask one million Uighurs). Although we are not presently at war with China, it is only a matter of time before China pushes us into that direction. Two examples are the South China Sea and Space exploration. China declares the South China Sea as their own domain, in contradiction of international law. Once their military can match ours in the region, they will kick us out of the area. In Space, China is rapidly developing weapons to take out our orbital infrastructure and is planning a permanent base on the moon. In the 60's, we declared a national emergency beat the Russians in the "space race". Where is that sense of urgency now that we have a larger threat than Russia against us?
1
@Robert The Chinese I know are pragmatic. In the past century they have been through humiliating occupations by the Western powers (including the US), a devastating occupation by Japan that killed 12 million Chinese, a bitter civil war, and the chaos and misery of the Cultural Revolution. For the moment they place a higher priority on stability and economic growth than on democracy and human rights. Is our record spotless? Earlier in our history we decimated Native Americans and enslaved African-Americans. Today we grant equal rights but not economic equality. or reparations. How would our islamophobic president react if one of our states were majority Muslim? We criticize China for failing to respect the rights of minorities (and not without reason) but we continue to separate poor immigrant children from their families and imprison them.
I often disagree with Tom and his 1 percenter view of the world, but this time I think he is bringing out a really important issue that the media, politicians and the public are either unaware of or simply ignoring. Good job , Tom.
1
Perhaps we believed that as China grew in prosperity it would lighten up on the authoritarianism, but we have actually seen the opposite. Corporations set aside possibly critical views of the lack of freedom in China in favor of the enormous profits to be made from a nation with so many potential consumers. It was always going to get awkward as China became a savvy manufacturing nation and perhaps did not need to rely as much on US businessmen. China's moves in the South China Seas are troubling. Still I would hate to see a total "decoupling". It may not hurt China, but it will hurt us and it will hurt many nations around the world in the long run. Trump's foreign policies are incoherent and transactional. We would benefit from an actual long view policy on China and on the rise of authoritarianism seemingly everywhere.
2
A command and control political system, government-run economy, including direct management of most business, universal official censorship and filtering of media (and bans on certain internet activity), all run by a powerful entrenched party.
Is this China or the proposals from many leading Democratic Party candidates?
@Bob Krantz
"A command and control political system, government-run economy, including direct management of most business, universal official censorship and filtering of media (and bans on certain internet activity), all run by a powerful entrenched party."
- Telling domestic companies who they can and cannot buy from, and who they can and cannot hire.
- Buying votes from the protected class of farmers with $billions in subsidies.
- Pushing propaganda through a de facto state media outlet.
Sounds like the Trump Republican Party.
2
@MidtownATL
Maybe they are both wrong and ultimately destructive.
A key to understanding US-China relations is to remember why so many voters went with Trump. They wanted him to break things. And he has. It is harder to explain why GOP members of Congress are totally on board with breaking our government as well as our economy, but they seem to see narrow, short term advantages for themselves and the political contributors who own them.
The future looks very grim for most of us, as I expect Trump to stay in office regardless of the vote in November.
1
@Svante Aarhenius: Trumpism is a fervent belief that every fire spawns a beautiful phoenix.
This decoupling feeds, intended or not, deglobalization, and an unintended side effect of deglobalization is reduced trade and economic growth, one of the few levers at hand to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A blessing in disguise. Not the most efficient way to do it but right now all the climate change indicators are going in the wrong direction, with policies either in support or ineffective.
1
@Robert
A worldwide depression would also be good for the environment -- at least in the short term.
Is that what you want?
2
Thank you for this excellent piece. Hopefully, MIT leadership isn't alone speaking out against the Trump administration's efforts to limit foriegn student access to higher education in the U.S. Apart from the degree they earn, having benefitted from a "freedom to think," will shape the rest of their lives.
3
@Peter: Unfulfilled expectations are explosive. These are Luddite times.
2
U.S. manufacturers are saying to themselves: We’d better think twice about building our next factory in China or solely depending on a supply chain from there.
Oh, God forbid that our Reagan-fearing companies make something in the United States and hire American workers who might someday casually think about forming a union.
2
@SoCal: Reagan was the worst enemy organized labor ever had. He wiped out unions when he fired all the air traffic controllers and disrupted the entire airline industry for two years.
1
Clearly our technology learning curve which is almost vertical, has outpaced our political wherewithal. On a global basis, we can't manage technological growth even if we could agree on what controls are needed. Of course we should try, but the technology Genie is out of the bottle and we're along for the ride.
1
Do US companies steal intellectual property from China? Does the US military steal secrets from its enemies? Intellectual property is overrated. It becomes known sooner or later.
Trump's big mistake -- well, there are so many, so let's just say his big mistake vi-a vis-China -- was rejecting TPP. Fortunately, Xi has been no better. One of the fist thing the next President should do is rejoin TPP.
2
Yes, stay focused on what is happening. Thank you.
Trump is weather. The Climate is changing.
1
China has its own problems convincing its public that life is worth living. Honk Kong is a harbinger.
2
Most commentaries neglect the importance of agriculture to China. The US.
This is a more delicate balance than the Chinese let on. Billions wanting slows progress right down ...The neighbors guard their own. Arable Africa years away.
The great leaps. Pour more concrete, forge steel, study, explore space. From sheep, carts and bicycles to Porsche Macans in 50 years.Their ag has kept up but limitations are immovable. Stealing GMO seeds or inbreds won't create more farmland.
I don't know Donald. Problem is you don't either.
"...a relationship that the world needs to work, to drive growth and deal with global problems like climate change...."
If humanity drives growth, humanity will never solve climate crisis.
An esteemed, worldly columnist of The New York Times still hasn't gotten this basic fact. There is really no hope for the humanity on the issue of climate crisis.
Whether China and America form a wonderful working relationship or build a digital wall, humans are surely doomed.
1
What’s the wealth distributions in China? Is it just like in US,worst than in US ya more people friendly from top to bottoms! When 1%households owes the entire nation’s 80%wealth pie and in control of resources,all such things are possible. They let such things happen under global economy standards so with stollen intellectual interests,they can make more through easiest ways.
That’s what all about cronies capitalism @ local as well global levels. DJT is one of them looking more for own pockets,not for others. One day he will fight Chinese authorities & once he get something in returns as favors for family businesses,he will soften his tones including talking more friendly praising same Chinese authorities.
1
Trump and his economic advisors like Peter Navarro are living in the 19th century. They believe tariffs, trade wars and economic isolation is going to be a winner. It's not.
The biggest stumbling block in U.S./China negotiations is the Trump Adm. wants China to fundamentally change its economic model. Their trade minister recently shot back that their system is "far superior" to ours, so if that's Tariff Man's strategy, it's doomed to fail.
146
@Mark McIntyre Change? Why? USA GDP at 1.9% China at 6% plus.
11
@Richard Head Trump is trying to play "catch-up" by salvaging US's nearly lost manufacturing capability, and US citizens' hopes for a future. What will be lost is already as good as lost. What will be regained is domestic tranquillity!
2
The problem here is simple--we have built a global Titanic, without water tight bulkheads. For the rewards of a global financial ecosystem, we accepted the risks of integrated coupling that, when things turn sour, could take the entire system down. If the Chinese, Japanese, or European economy crashes, we crash too. Given current levels if government and personal debt, rising nationalism, overpopulation, global warming, rising artificial intelligence, and "Trumpism", it is simply a matter of time before we experience a massive global train wreck. This is absolutely necessary, for we cannot build a newer and better system on ideologies that brought us to this present situation. Every ending is a beginning.
US-China decoupling and Brexit are both examples of the same: politically popular decouplings that will lead to decreased economic growth.
3
@Suzanne Hsu: Isolationism and secession are surging. As the world shrinks, it fractures.
The opposite is true of the article's thesis. America will become stronger and more independent without China. After all, Americans are the most creative people in the world. Like workers from everywhere else, we don't need the Chinese either for our greatness.
1
@Ray: Trumpism crushes creativity. He is the antithesis of joy.
@Ray
Americans are NOT the most creative people in the world.
We have an open society which fosters creativity.
This attracts people from all over the globe and THAT gives creativity the room to flourish in America.
Our open society is on the brink of closing and that will make America into "just another country".
2
Friedman: "...Because the peace, prosperity and accelerations in technology and globalization that have so benefited the world over the past 40 years were due, in part, to the interweaving of the U.S. and Chinese economies. "
I guess Mr Friedman is not one of those millions of 'left behind Americans' in our diminished middle-class who lost a factory job and a community to Chinese peasants. Talk about a perspective deficit.
Would there be this highly lauded global prosperity without the price paid by American workers? I don't think so. And if this global prosperity is under threat as Mr. Friedman asserts it not because of a tech trade wall, it is because we are running out of middle-class jobs and Americans to sacrifice on the altar of global profits.
5
@wilt: When the US needed to go metric, establish equal protection of national law, and dump religion, along came Ronald Reagan to convince manufacturers to find greener pastures.
3
Trump. Trump. Trump. Until you lose your mind. Thank you for an op-ed not completely about Trump. Yes there are other events in the world greater than the daily Trump beat down. As a matter of fact, the liberal media, and yes, most of the media is still very liberal, are becoming obnoxious with the never-ending pounding of Trump. Once there was a time when 95% of the media were liberal. Those days are over. How many times and how many ways are liberal pundits going to repeat the same thing? We know what we have in Trump. Tell us something we don't know.
Mr. Friedman seems to want to simultaneously declare "victory" for the dismal failure of "engagement" policy and decry China's behavior on trade, human rights, snatching territory, HK, etc.
Face it Tom, almost 40 years of all carrot and zero stick has got Xi and his subjects believing they are all geniuses.
Pride cometh before the fall.
So now the architect of the Great Recession and the bailer out of crooked banks is telling us how to enable him to make money in China.
Unnecessary competition is a product of capitalism. The situation described here is a perfect example. It creates redundancy, waste and sometimes war. File under how stupid is capitalism?
Hey boomers, get a clue, your Social Security will be garnisheed to pay your Medicare premiums.
China was a power thousands of years before the American shores were a gleam in explorers eyes. Their culture takes the long and patient view. Without regard for the general population as evinced by their history. Does this enter into western thinking?
One promise RD does not recount was candidate Trump's pledge to pay down the debt by the end of his first term. This was a ridiculous promise, but it was made nonetheless. Right now your government in a strong economy is spending a trillion dollars more per year than the tax base is providing. Add this fact to the complete disregard for any action on environmental degradation and millions of boomers about to get Medicare and Social Security and it seems as if a reckoning has to be on the horizon. By all means reelect Mr. Trump if that is what you feel your country needs. My very best wishes to you all.
5
@A Canadian View: Mexico was going to wall itself off from this toxic nation at its own expense too.
1
China is not a friendly power, an honest broker, a beneficent state actor: China is an enemy power waging economic and military war on the world.
China has laboured under the delusion that it is destined to rule the world since at least the Qin dynasty; and it has a 'hundred year plan' to achieve that. China "linked" its economy to the world only for the purpose of plundering its knowledge and technology.
Chinese citizens are only allowed into the world if they are certified ideologically pure. To doubly ensure their loyalty, family members in China are essentially hostages.
Globalisation has done for China what it did for America: enriched the top one to two per cent. And given it the money to buy any politician it needs.
Trump's trade war will fail because he has no real plan to restore American production of either: raw materials or finished products.
The author talks of a slowing world economy: but if the alternative is a Chinese satrapy, that is not a bad outcome.
4
I beg your pardon, SOME of us are actually paying attention, which is why we will make the correct decisions on election day, and why we will keep watching whoever is elected. For those of you who don;t know about this stuff, try engaging with some independent news sources, ones that are not right-wing extremists. You'll be shocked at what's going on out there.
4
Another pointed, succinct, and balanced essay, Mr Friedman. And I agree, America First sounds nice but only to folks who don't realize America is part of something bigger than itself. We are the leader of liberty in the world. Trump, and socialists like Mr Sanders, are not the solution.
1
"I still believe that the most open systems win".
Probably. In most areas. But not as a rule and certainly not when it comes to protecting intellectual property. China takes advantage of the openness of the US and the West in order to steal its IP and technology. And it is China, not the West, that wins.
3
Trump is right about China.
He may not be right about anything else, but he's right about China.
2
People should read Robert K. Massie’s book “Dreadnought” for some perspective on Friedman’s op-ed. It’s the story of what happened the last time an economic rivalry, between a global superpower and a regional upstart, spun out of control. It ended up making the 20th century one of history’s bloodiest centuries.
2
I view China much differently than it seems do most Times readers. That may be because I do not share their generally very leftist sympathies which cause them to excuse extremely bad actions by China simply because China is a left wing dictatorship rather than right wing dictatorship.
My perspective is to make no excuses on behalf of China and, instead, judge their behavior in objective terms according to the philosophical standards that westerners generally use to judge behavior by westerners. China is not an ally of the US and clearly does not act out of any motivation to benefit or protect Americans. Therefore, my perspective is concern for the welfare of Americans with disinterest in the welfare of Chinese as they are very actively and effectively watching out for themselves.
I oppose Trump's tariffs. I think Americans should take advantage of bargains offered by foreign suppliers of goods and services. We should not punish Americans with tariff taxes to deny Americans the benefit of those bargains.
I oppose allowing Chinese ownership of businesses located in the US and I oppose allowing American companies to own businesses located in China. The very valuable economic benefits of free trade are justification only for free TRADE, not for free investment. It is those investments in China by Americans and in the US by China, that provide China with the opportunity to easily steal American intellectual property.
3
I would argue that our nation stands on more than just two pillars of democracy - truth and trust. Our nation's values, proclaimed and enshrined in the Bill of Rights, are what sets us apart, and should set us apart, in any - us versus them - debate about China. Mr Friedman does not even make a passing reference to China's too numerous to count human rights violations in his assessment of our current predicament. When the rest of the world ultimately chooses up sides, it will not just be based upon a premium technology or network manufacturer, but on an assessment of which country best represents their values. As it should. This, of course, will be easier when the occupant in the White House represents our values too.
2
@North Country Rambler
I wholeheartedly share your embrace of the Constitution's Bill of Rights. However, you are walking on thin ice expressing your embrace in this forum. You should expect condemnation, not praise, for your position.
Remember, the Bill of Rights also protect freedom of speech and right to protect oneself with guns, weapons that are effective regardless of one's physical strength and abilities. Progressives hate freedom of speech when they disagree with that which is spoken. Progressives embrace censorship and enforced political correctness. Progressives hate guns and those people who have them (except when the people who have them are government people).
@Errol I'll be brief: I disagree with every "point" you made.
2
Friedman has given us great insight into China/America trade relations today, and the scope is tremendous because it's far more than just importing/exporting goods. China has reached the stage where it is surpassing the U.S. and that is what scares the U.S. But from my insight what is more important is how we allow just one person, Trump, to be the centerfold. Our government has allowed over time for this to happen. Our greed for the bottom line, our promoting the exporting of American jobs and manufacturing to foreign countries to again, be greedy for short term profits. Where were our CEOs of major U.S. companies standing up and saying no to providing technology to China when they moved their operation there to mfg for one and only one basic reason: greed for profits. The U.S. created its problem, don't put all the blame on China. It many respects, it is similar to what Europe did to Africa and parts of Asia during those days of colonialism and empire building. China has been around far longer than the U.S. and has better vision of the future. And important if not moreso, Trump has created so much world animosity against the U.S. that it won't be long and we'll be begging countries to buy from us.
3
There is an incendiary anti-China hysteria sweeping the world. China, with its powerful economy, huge population and ascending world influence has every right to demand a place at the head of the table. Those countries who are trying to stop it, the US and Australia included, will not only fail but will help create a new world disorder. China will spy, steal secrets, expand its trade, influence political and economic direction, just like all major powers have always done.
What to do with China is very simple, engage it and involve it in international structures so that there are rules by which to play, to compete and to trade.
This is a great article but my heart sank when I read “The Whole World Versus China”. This is Cold War, adversarial mentality that will lead to decades of destructive confrontation. China has arrived, get used to it, deal with it in a grown up, rational way.
2
It seems to me that there is an 800 lb. gorilla question in the room when it comes to China that no one wants to ask directly:Is the end-game of the Chinese government to eventually conquer Asia and beyond, both with soft-power in the near term, and when that has been established, with hard power?
One could easily surmise from their behavior that they are laying the groundwork for the moment when they can cast off the shackles of polite diplomacy and flex their muscles militarily, long a fantasy of theirs in their emergence from 200 years of colonial humiliation. This jingoism is loud and clear in China from the Party to the People, though we don't hear it in the West.
All the poor developing countries around the world in whose infrastructure China has so benevolently invested in with it's inspiringly named "Belt and Road" initiative will be pawns in this scenario. They have accepted the surveillance technology under the guise of "Cheap tech" and the infrastructure aid because they had no choice. And when the bill comes due and is defaulted on? Well , now we need to have a military base in your country, etc. China is creating a new wave of economic colonialism in poor countries, forcibly pulling more and more countries into a dependance with them.
Or they could be putting their military on steroids and forcing countries into dependence because they want to be a benevolent power? I hope it is the latter, but my paranoia I don't think is unfounded.
Just returned from Israel. We send Israel over 3 billion in aid plus loan guaranties. Everywhere I went there was amazing new infrastructure being constructed that we can only dream about in the US. There is a new subway in Tel Aviv; miles of a very efficient rail system including hish speed rail and other transportation improvements. Problem is the contractors and suppliers are Chinese. Does that make any sense when infrastructure is crumbling and stunted in the US?
China is benefitting from US foreign aid all over the world.
4
WOW! A very important article and bigger than Trump. This is something I hadn't realized but truly believe. I don't know where to start. butI look forward to more thinking and articles on this subject. Thomas has done us all a big favor by broaching this subject. I hope the other op-editors chime in too. I'd like to hear Paul Krugman's thoughts and remidies.
2
Yes, ‘two families of apes fighting together while the forest around them burns…’ Predicted in Revelation as Gog and Magog. But this battle may be technological in flavor instead of physical.
I pray we patch this divide. When I imagine humanity finally stepping onto planets and astroids, it is people together from Earth, not separately from East or West.
1
Chinese have a long memory. They were dismissed for a long time as their leadership were lazy and corrupt which left the people poor. Deng Xiopiang began their elevation when he nurtured their inherent entrepreneur qualities. For me, when he stated "we will be the Saudi Arabia of Rare Earths," I knew they will surpass the rest of the world. As close to a philosopher king as any I know in history.
All I hear is "tech tech tech tech tech." Honestly, it's all well and good we are distancing ourselves from China and fighting in the tech realm. But that fight isn't anything new. Anti-globalists and unions on the left and nationalists on the right have been lobbying for that distance for decades.
Now, explain to me precisely how soy beans, pigs, and corn got mixed up in all this. (No, actually don't; it really is just Trump's obsession with trade deficits.)
2
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/26/782867301/china-wanted-a-spy-in-australias-parliament-reports-say
According to this short article, China was willing to fund a candidate in Australia. The same thing may have already happened here I suppose. It is obviously extremely difficult for a diverse and freethinking society to fight a unified machine like China. We need to pull it together somehow. With our leadership in government and private enterprise though, it is unlikely that we will. Capitalism and greed rule us and divide us. How can we come together as a country when the powerful don't have the instinct to share, and many individuals think that the competition for power and dominance and money is the ultimate way to live?
2
Isn't this a bit like the CEO of MacDonald's shouting: "Hey! How come everybody's eating so much junk food?"
1
Tom, you recommend the TPP as a solution without actually saying so. Just say it.
1
Mr. Friedman overstates the case.
Yes, there will be barriers, and China can't continue to steal our intellectual property. Of course we need some payback so I sure hope there are our spies in China right now doing to them what they've done to us for 40 years. And maybe there will be more barriers.
But in the end the country where the greater individual freedoms exist will win, hands down. Nothing else matters much. And that country is not China.
I am not worried about the US. And fortunately we still have mostly sane people who don't want to make the US into a Marxist paradise.
9:05 AM EST Wed.
2
Time passes. Things change. Trump and Xi will eventually be gone. Meanwhile, Space Ship Earth is burning up. Time for the passengers to become crew.
Earthlings: Unite!
Trump may be Dr Evil, Pompeo may be mini me, but China surely is Spectre
I always thought 'The Plan' was to use other nations Oil first.
And let less advanced tech be made elsewhere.
Such as the many widgets and toys North America loves.
While USA would dominate with better education, advanced research and best in class infrastructure.
I read 'Foundation' by Isaac Asimov a long time ago.
We, right here and now, have failed our destiny.
Glad to be old, sorry grandkids.
2
China is working hard to take over the globe: Belt and Suspenders projects in Africa and South America, talking to South Korea about how to rein in North Korea, meeting with Macron to talk about trade, creating new agriculture markets to fill its needs, meeting with Putin on how to divvy up the spoils of his attacks on the US. Yes, Obama tried to use our resources and leadership to create the TPP, but we backed out. China is now creating a new Pacific Rim trade group, which it will lead. Trump's tariffs seem to have only helped China to focus on new markets and other resources for technology expertise. Just more "winning" from this White House.
2
Let’s hope this trend on decoupling building our own stuff, includes educating and properly preparing a young generation of American kids to better compete in building and inventing things, with the kind of drive, and resources dedicated to us on all fronts. Instead of the current degree of reliance on foreign stuff.
@Orion - we have to get heads away from hand-held screens and looking forward not down!!!
1
This is one area in whichI agree with Trump and he didn’t initiate the competition, China did. He has just recognized it and the Europeans just a bit behind him. China’s political system is very different from that of the West and years ago it set itself up to catch up economically. To ignore how China deals with the West is to bury one’s head in the sand.
1
The narrative that China has developed by stealing our technology is a gross exaggeration. Millions of Chinese have graduated from US universities, mostly in STEM fields, and there are more than 300,000 currently enrolled. Have they learned nothing? More than 80,000 Chinese are on university faculties in America. American companies have applied for millions of B1/B2 visas in order to employ Chinese nationals in their operations and a large majority of US companies operating in China have agreed to share technology. Naturally, there has been technology transfer, most of it entirely legitimate.
2
Well, the forest all around us IS burning. And we are doing little or nothing about it. The will to prevent the oil companies from getting the last dollar out of the fossil fuels in the ground is lacking nearly everywhere. We are doing nothing about that, and de facto accepting a terrible future for our children, grandchildren and the human race. While the headlines all deal with other things.
Two, would any sensible person think a risen China would not seek global hegemony, at whatever price? A great power, the leading empire in the world for 1000 years that over the past four centuries was made to eat dirt? To think they would not seek to dominate us is a fairy tale, just like the fairy tale that over the next ten years we are going to cut greenhouse gases by 7% a year. But then, the human world runs on fairy tales.
2
The last sentence is more important than the rest of the article. Worrying about China-US relations is irrelevant in a world which is happily trashing its climate. Future historians will view us as similar to the European leaders who sleepwalked into WWI.
1
It is called capitalism where The Few hold control and own commodities, factories, workers, patents and use government provided infrastructure. There was more money to be made by using cheap labor, so The Few did it.
Democrats and Republicans equally protected and supported the greed perpetuated by The Few. Money and greed.
2
The great game was played last by Kissinger and Mao when they opened to door with a vast China-US student exchange program. Mao believed the students would return to China with technical knowledge that would advance Chinese industry. Kissinger believed they would return with a love of entrepreneurship that would undermine and ultimately destroy Communism. Both were right. Many of us at the time also believed that closer economic and social ties would prevent what might otherwise become another world war. What could be more important to our future? The issue of intellectual property is a sham. Do you think Elon Musk is worried about it? The most valuable thing Chinese competitors have stolen from him is his business model, which is hardly a secret, but in return he has access to the world's largest market and most productive workers. Unfortunately Trump's xenophobia and Xi's nationalism are abandoning the past and moving us toward a long and destructive conflict.
The only time the US or China actually threatened security with bugged technology was when Boeing sold a presidential aircraft to China in 2002 with dozens of bugs in it. Why on Earth would Huawei irritate its best customers by bugging its routers? They have a much simpler strategy for world domination. They sell reliable products at low prices. It's the American way.
The Chinese are strategically building a national independent manufacturing zone within their digital wall. In U.S. technology companies, we call this a “walled garden”. Inside the garden operates the economic engine that will sustain them while keeping out digital spies or cyber attacks that would undermine their growth and dominance.
Over recent decades, the Chinese have acted with globally strategic precision accumulating raw minerals they need to perpetually run their economic engine. Trading Chinese-constructed infrastructure projects with countries holding massive reserves of strategic raw minerals, and tying up those minerals with long-running contracts, the Chinese have apparently secured their sources far into the future.
At some point, China may quietly decide that it could survive with nothing more than the external sales of its products and technologies and the complementary political relationships it chooses to maintain. From its history, we would be foolish to believe it is not already making strategic plans for 2021-2050.
When China becomes confident in their sustainable future, we should expect it to call in its loans to debtor nations. We should be un-surprised if China refuses to accept American dollars as repayment. Looking at you, Fort Knox!
Friedman has a TDS problem. So, he has to blame everything on Trump when it should go to someone else. Almost everything happened negatively in US-China relationship happened before Trump become president. Unfair trade practices, huge trade surplus, stealing of intellectual property, using technology companies for espionage, attempt to dominate militarily, plans to dominate critical industries to wipe out American industries, and so on by China were not Trump's creation. Trump is the one told China that they cannot do those things at our expense and he is acting on it. And he is taking various actions against Chinese malevolent acts and plans against the advise of Friedman. If Chinese want to erect technological berlin wall to oppress its people, it is not going to succeed as in the case of Berlin wall. It will crumble at a future time. Trump is trying to bring senses to Chinese leadership through the trade negotiations and other sensible actions. We have to thank Trump for seeing Chinese malevolent plans and taking actions to resist it.
1
@Alex E
Anybody can ‘take actions’. The question is whether it is smart action. If you want to drop bombs on an enemy, most people would prefer you not hit your own troops at the same time.
2
@Citixen what Trump is doing is the best action. He is trying to remove negatives from China relations to bring it to a positive relations, assuming a trade deal will be signed by Trump and Xi. If no trade deal is signed, Trump and America will still be able to control negatives from China. It all happened as our previous president was leading from behind while others took advantage of America.
@Alex E
First off, that’s a big assumption to make considering Trump’s failure to close deals (NK is still launching missiles in defiance of Trump).
Secondly, you only assign blame to the previous administration for a diplomatic relationship it also inherited from a previous one, without acknowledging the years of diplomatic effort that the administration put into regional alternatives that would’ve cut out a misbehaving China while sparing our farmers and American consumers from the substantial economic disruptions that have occurred with Trump’s “blunt force trauma” approach of trade tariffs.
Like I said, it’s usually preferable to fire on the enemy without endangering your own troops.
1
It seems to me that the Trump Administration is pursuing this "America First" policy without having thought thru any of the details.
It was not widely reported, but back in early October the Chinese were ready to sign a trade deal, but analysts in our Treasury Department did some economic projections and found out why they were so willing to sign on so soon, and our trade negotiators told the Chinese negotiators that they were not going to agree to the terms we agreed on just a few weeks earlier.
Even if we get a small deal signed, it's not going to help our manufacturing sector employment numbers, as more and more automation will replace those jobs, not Chinese manufacturing.
2
What if we just let China run the world economy and focussed on quality of life in our own country? Wealth creation is a bad thing if it reinforces inequity.
1
This battle is not going to be won in the next few decades. China has a proud history of over 3000 years. The US is barely 250 years old. China accounted for one third of world trade around 1800, the US was barely on the map.
In 30 years from now when Messrs Xi and Trump will be gone, China will have a huge, maybe controlling, demographic issue due to its one-child policy. The world will look completely different from what it looks today.
The impact of a deterioriating environment and the braod penetration of AI will have profound implications on all of mankind and every nation and the relationsships between them.
So, whilst it is important to deal with today's issues and fight battles that must be fought now, let's not lose sight of the mid-term picture. And here, an over-riding principle should be win-win-win, i.e. a win for the US, a win for Chuina, and a win for all of mankind. Not sure, either Mr. Xi or Mr. Trump have the greatness to think and act in such terms.
You’re right that liberals, at least this one, agree with the ‘times up’ approach to China. But I don’t see this as just a China-U.S. thing. We need a total redo on globalization. This unchecked tech, trade free-for-all was bound to be used by all players, each for their own benefit.
Rather than a new iron curtain, maybe it’s time for all of us to adopt China’s tech-fence. As with physical borders, countries use them for various reasons; to keep dissenters out, invaders out, reasonably control immigration. China’s tech fence might be used for their internal dissent control, but I’d like to see a U.S. fence that would keep foreign hackers, scammers, and yes, Russianesque disinformation campaigns, out.
Good fences make good neighbors. China’s might be for political control, the president’s Wall might be for racial reasons, but rational, necessary control of this new tech world can include, good, fences, too.
I agree that the more " open system wins" and I would add that the U.S will always be superior in this area than China, at least as long as the Communist party is in power. Secondly, I don't think that a technological cold war is necessarily a bad thing since the competition between the Soviet Union and the U.S produce great scientific innovations. As long as the U.S builds her alliances, (TPP) I think we benefit from the increased spending on R&D that will result from this competition.
What isn't news is that ever since the 1990's US corporations have been moving our jobs to China who is building a military machine that could probably beat us in battle while we buy products to make them richer, while we get poorer. This was the swing issue that won Trump the election, he seemed to address this issue. If the candidates are listening, they need to address China, by first bringing back our pharmaceutical makers back to the US, along with our technology, manufacturing, and make it harder to steal our ideas. Also lets quit borrowing money from people we may go to war with at some point (hopefully not), and lets not vote Trump back into office...
1
What a farce to watch the global competition to obsolete human intelligence. How to make life not worth living.
The world has and will be always a dangerous place. So much going on for the human species to worry about.
“America has been fighting without winning for 20 years. China has been winning without fighting for 20 years.”
China has bribed Wall Street and CEO elite of America to fight Americans for them. Fight investment in infrastructure as “boondoggles”, fight higher education as “free money for everyone”, fight independent scientific research as “fake” and “elitist”.
Far from fighting without wining, the economic elite and their Republican patsies have effectively brought America to its knees with stunning success.
1
We have a vindictive, inept leader with the attention span of a gnat, and you worry why this biggest best wall is being built. Couple this with total self-serving ignorance and you have described America's current leadership. These men have no idea about learning, asking assistance from experts in their fields, and the very old fashion notion of compromise.
But, not to worry, when or if this current Administration and their sycophantic Republicans implode, there may be no America remaining to save from itself.
We won’t be around to miss it when it’s gone. Because of our stupidity, we’ll be gone, too.
The only way out of this dilemma is, one side has to win.
My bet is that it will be China. They extracted what they needed out of The West; the rest is now up to them.
This can go one of two ways. America, the crumbling former superpower, can gather what’s left of itself after the depredations of Troll Trump and his minions, and try to catch up and cooperate with China’s world leadership. An elegant passing of the mantle.
Or we can resist the future, perpetuate the inefficiencies of capitalist destruction and watch the species die in the process.
We have a choice, but given the idiocy behind the last election, I don’t think we’ll make the correct one.
So, goodbye to us all, then.
China want to take the place of US without the values , we cannot afford to not fight this battle. regarding the forest fire , only one ape and one party continue to fan the fire , we have to take out that ape and it's family to have a chance to save ourselves .
Just who is fanning fires throughout the world? And what do you mean by "take out"?
1
Yep Tom. All Trump all the time. Yet you control what you print so how about a discussion of Gov. Weld. He is running against Trump. You might want to gin up a story or two for those running against the constant chaos of Mr. Trump.
Ah, yes. Kishore Mahbubani. You see him all over YouTube on many TED talks and on CCP controlled CGTN produced videos.
He’s the dude from Singapore who thinks that the US is finished, China has won, and that the American people need to kneel down and acquiesce to their subservience to China.
I suggest that you re-watch the opening scene from the movie “Patton.” That sentiment is as true today as it was 50 years ago when that movie was made. The American people are not going to lie down and accept Chinese masters as Mr. Mahbubani wants.
There is a fundamental irreconcilable conflict of culture, values and political ideology between the US and China that is rapidly coming to the fore and that can no longer be elided by agreeing to disagree. This is a zero sum game where the loser is going to have to accept the dominance by the winner. It is going to be resolved with a test of strength: i.e. war, either hot, cold or both.
The American people have had it with a political class that squanders their blood and treasure by “fighting without winning“ while getting rich by allowing China to “win without fighting.” (Holy Sun Tsu!!!).
Get ready for a fight.
Wouldn't it be great if some sleeper tech giant was out there ready to wake up?
For pity’s sake.
Chinese communists despise the distinction between business and state. There is what commies call a fundamental contradiction here.
Thinking huwei is some misunderstanding and pretending the Chinese communist party doesn’t believe what it believes is the sign of someone in need of a strait jacket.
Don't forget it took Democrats to do what Republicans could only dream of.
Clinton gave favorite trading status to the Chinese and NAFTA. He started the massive shift of factories from the US to Mexico and China.
You never hear about a postmortem of the 2016 election do you. Its because the Neo Liberals Corporate owned Dems didn't want you to know it was their ideas that lost to the worst person on the planet.
1
Indians and china do not have the infrastructure
of the US
@gary
Said the commenter who has never been to China. And what superior infrastructure are you referring to here? Crumbling roads, parks and public buildings? You need to travel more, sir.
2
TPT was a good replacement of China. The world if it has a choice would pick a liberal order over China. Trump doesn't want a liberal order. His policies make us as bad as China. Trump is a disaster.
Don't worry Tom. Jared Kushner will repair U.S.-China relations as soon as he finishes the Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and builds Trump's border wall. By then, of course, China will have 6G and AI while his father-in-law is in prison, having failed to find Hillary's server in Ukraine or convince us that coal-fired computers will bring back the good old days.
5
"China is our economic competitor, economic partner, source of talent and capital, geopolitical rival, collaborator and serial rule-breaker. It is not our enemy or our friend."
In a presidential cabinet plagued by ethical problems, it can be easy to forget about Wilbur Ross. On November 1, 2017, Ross signed a sworn document, attesting that he had divested all the assets he promised he would. That was not true. The commerce secretary in fact still owned somewhere between $10 and $50 million worth of stock in WL Ross’ parent company, Invesco. Ross sold his shares a month later, banking at least $1.2 million more than he would have if he sold in May, when he initially promised to divest. By falsely claiming he gotten rid of the shares earlier, Ross also put himself in legal jeopardy, since it is a crime to lie to federal officials. Representatives for Ross, a sophisticated investor, claimed the commerce secretary did not lie but instead failed to realize he owned the shares. And he admitted to shorting stock of Sun Bancorp, saying he hoped to cancel out an interest he mistakenly thought he owned but in fact did not. “For any head of any private equity firm that I know of, including like [Carlyle’s David] Rubenstein or [Blackstone’s Stephen] Schwarzman—these guys know what they own. It’s their whole business. It’s their whole life,” says an investor in WL Ross’ funds. A onetime colleague: “This is a public servant who can’t tell the truth.”
2
Just take a look at the type, level, and content of the conversation in the comments section. This is what Mr. Friedman has provoked; that's why I admire Mr. Friedman. Tom, keep it up.
92
re :The U.S.-China divide isn’t just about trade.
Oh gosh, has Friedman read the NY Times, from Aug 2018
"With Ships and Missiles, China Is Ready to Challenge U.S. Navy in Pacific"
This has long moved past trade
This conflict whose military dominates the Pacific - and much more - in the next 100 years
"tightly coupled strategy"? You'll never get that out of this White House. It governs from the gut on a Twitter feed.
I've always thought one of the best ways to counter a repressive government is by opening our boarders and sharing the benefits of a progressive democratic society. Rather than blocking Cuba for decades upon decades we should have encouraged trade and tourism. Likewise, our cultural treasures should be the gold standard of our democracy much like the jazz ambassadors of the 1950's who toured behind the Iron Curtain. Building a wall leaves us "Alone" as Mr. Friedman points out. And while there are critical issues that demand attention, we need to carefully negotiate a successful path. Good luck with any progress considering the present occupants of the White House. For that reason alone we cannot in good faith allow them four more years.
1
"One of the most negative byproducts of the Trump presidency is that all we talk about now is Donald Trump."
No, that is the negative byproduct of a news media that has abandoned news and embraced sensationalism with a death-grip. It is why I pay for the New York Times but read the (free) BBC website for actual news of the US and the world.
247
@NorthernVirginia I read BBC, too, though I no longer find it as objective as I used to -- in the name of "equivalency", it too often seems to favor the Conservatives, in the same way that false equivalency in the U.S. press too often downplays Republican malfeasance and exaggerates that of the Democrats.
I also like the Guardian. It's unabashedly liberal from an editorial standpoint, but they also don't pull punches against either side. And, it's a non-profit so they are less driven by sensationalist nonsense as a way of driving profits. Indeed, their fund raising is driven by being objective, rather than "balanced".
34
@NorthernVirginia Good point. Who elected Trump? CNN. They covered him constantly before any votes were cast because . . . it was good for ratings. And the other TV news organizations did much the same. He became a national sensation because cable news couldn't stop covering him (again, I refer to the period before any votes were cast). Not that he didn't represent the political frustrations of a certain segment of the population, but he became a serious contender for the presidency only because the media gave him so much exposure.
25
@NorthernVirginia don't be silly. Trump is a showman who excels at using headlines. Without headlines, he's nothing. Who's using who?
10
We in the US tend to think of ourselves as the leviathan superpower and super economy and that used to be true enough to serve our interests. Do we really understand that China has a billion, billion! more people than we do? India is not far behind.
When those huge masses of people were mostly poor and uneducated, they dragged down those nations. As that has begun to change, and, whatever you think about their governments, change is rushing in, the calculations about the future change.
That's just one reason, but a big one, why the presidency of Donald Trump is a disaster.
131
It has been noted elsewhere that America thinks about the next quarter. China thinks about the eat quarter century.
1
The biggest problem with the China/USA relationship is NOT doing enough to stem the irreversible problem of climate change.
Look at the carbon going in the atmosphere from iron production smelting plants making air unbreathable. To make it through the day in parts of India and China, it requires wearing a white-paper-filter-mask.
Cooperation is more important than competition.
Let's focus on long-term priorities --- of a more serious nature.
Quick --- buy up all the houses you can --- in Gangi, Italy --- for "just one euro."
The air is fresh there, but --- there are no jobs or young people staying in Gangi. The death rate is out-pacing the birth-rate.
Who should be concerned?
"A few are guilty, all are responsible”
1
Oy Vey! There has been some time since I read an argument so devoid of a proper roots analysis. To pick everything that’s wrong with this opinion piece will take more than the allotted space here but one glaring missing thing is a proper “follow the money” rule. Indeed China government is ruthless and driven by a rigid communist authoritarian apparatus, that much was clear in 1989 wasn’t it? But the destruction of American manufacturing and the subsequent destruction of the American middle class rests squarely with the unregulated American Capitalism. How much longer are we continuing to blame Authoritarian China for stealing the labour and the technology we actually gladly handed over in our quest for more and more profits? Follow the money. It will be easy to find who’s truly at fault for this. Hint: it’s not China.
3
Tom, you did not discuss the impact of two political systems on this conflict - on my mind that is the elephant in the room. The market system in China and US will play out and find the optimal mode of the global economic system. But there is no dynamic political process to bring a political alignment that is optimal to global society. We are talking two different cultures and society - China use globalization as a practical tools for mercantile transaction, where as US follows globalization to get the higher productivity and reduce cost. These are very different cultural approach and that creates the tension. It will not go away by twining at the edges - it requires major change. One Party Communist dictatorship will not allow this to happen. The break is inevitable and any US policy maker who thinks that they will work with China on label playing field is insane.
China was the best thing that ever happened to the US. Corporations made billions even though jobs were being lost right and left. Now that China has grown up and is in direct competition with US corporate power, suddenly we are trying to put the genie back in the bottle. The whole world will be losers if we can't work this out, but as long as trump is running the chaotic ship, not much hope is in store for us. Because we have a strong nation the damage has not been too obvious, but short sighted and narrow minded politicians on both sides will play this board game to win the battle but lose the war. The real game to be played during the next decade is to grapple and resolve the climate issue or everyone loses. The US has so much to lose and we have a leader that is so backwards that it's painful to see how he still rules the narrative.
1
A large part of what Friedman is talking about belongs in the WTO. Most countries agree there needs to be an extended notion of free trade. There are many advantages to that:
- We have more leverage that way, together with our allies.
- The negotiation ceases to be such a matter of national pride.
- We can separate free trade from our desire to control China’s power (a delusion in any case)
- We can incorporate important new factors, such as climate change and other environmental issues
- We can also do more about labor standards
- It would help wean ourselves off protectionism (aka “industrial policy”).
Trump has us so accustomed to ignoring international institutions that we just don’t think about them.
(One additional point mentioned only because it is never talked about: Chinese intellectual property theft went down significantly under Obama. It got much worse with the trade wars, for the reasons Friedman mentions.)
3
Yet another reason pulling out of the Trans Pacific Partnership was a bad idea. That pact would have had the US as the center of a partnership of Asian nations leaving China on the outside. Instead, Trump's sinking of the TPP has left us with less influence and given China opportunity to have freer trade and influence in Asia. If a rupture happens in terms of the web, those nations will have to (and be free to) chose the US or China...
3
But Putin approves! That's what matters.
1
@Anne-Marie Hislop
Totally agree. It was absolutely incomprehensible that we pull out of our best anti-China redoubt just at the very moment we came to realize there was going to be a struggle with China. It was the economic equivalent of building a huge fortress, and then abandoning it when someone knocked on the front door.
But then that’s Trimp (not a typo). He’s never learned how to assess the value of something he doesn’t have a personal, emotional, attachment to. That’s why he’s such a failure in traditional businesses. He loves the marquee value but doesn’t know how to leverage that value into operational success. He simply holds an asset until it fails, then he dumps it at a loss and uses Chapter 11 to extract tax concessions from the public. He does the same with people. Just ask any of divorced trophy wives, or business partners. Our entire nation is simply his most recent acquisition, to be pumped and dumped when we no longer serve his purposes of self-aggrandizement. (Those 3, pardoned, Navy SEALs Trimp is now expecting to join him on the campaign trail as military props might want to consider the long-term consequences of being associated with a man that will go down in history as the next Benedict Arnold)
1
China’s welcome to erect its digital wall. All it will do is to commit digital suicide vis-a-vis the rest of the world (and help commit homicide at home).
Go at it, China. We dare you.
So why did you lead off your article talking about Donald Trump?
I respect Mr. Friedman’s thinking a lot. After reading today’s column, I felt that I have read this stuff before. Many paragraphs in this column are simply cut and paste from his own column not too long ago.
Today’s column is mostly warmed up left over intellectual serving. It seems that he is getting lazy in intellectual thinking.
‘In was a mistake’ - first time I have seen an error in NYTimes.
I'm not a historian, but History does repeat itself until it's destroyed itself and China's fate was sealed by the old and now new Great Wall. The new silk-belt road is a slave road of capital leading back to a bloated empire that is in denial.
but like TF says, who cares - and meanwhile the Earth is dying
You got it wrong. The Silk Road is a Chinese idea, not an American.
1
One scandal that is made in America and can be fixed in America is our absolute scandal of an educational system. The main reason intellectual property has left the US is that almost all of the intellectuals in science and engineering in the US are foreign nationals, who are eventually pushed back, or lured back, to their home countries.
Compared to other countries, US k-12 and undergraduate college education does a terrible job preparing young people for graduate-level work in science and engineering. The result is that few American young people go that route, and there are few American researchers and university professors at the end of the pipeline.
One can point fingers in all sorts of directions. Local school boards might be concerned about other things - stopping bullying, active shooter drills, keeping kids off drugs and not pregnant, etc. Colleges have such an easy time getting qualified graduate students from Asia, that they neglect their American undergraduates. And as the pool of professors becomes increasingly foreign, it's more natural to travel home to recruit graduate students, rather than recruit from their less-qualified, often less driven, US undergraduates. Finally, US graduate schools have become below-minimum-wage research factories, rather than educational institutions.
But the main cause of the problem is that, unlike at the time of Sputnik, nobody in the US, from the President down to the local car dealer on the school board, cares.
5
Boo hoo. All too distracted to bother with such things. That's America.
Spot on. As an educator, I experience the lack of drive, almost apathy, of domestic students compared to foreign students, with a few exceptions. As a society we are mostly oblivious or indifferent to educational standards, preoccupied as we are with culture wars and military conflicts. But the crucial drivers of competitiveness and prosperity in the 21st century will be education and infrastructure. We ignore these fundamentals at our peril.
2
In talking about America and China, we should distinguish the interests of the rulers from the interests of the people. Although most economists want free trade, purchasing power parity GDP of the Chinese economy is now 28 percent more than the American economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
Since China has a developing economy, like India, it's growing at a faster rate than the American economy.
This means that the American warlords would have to extract a bigger and bigger portion of the GDP for their military to stay ahead of the Chinese warlords. This superiority gives them the freedom to coerce weaker governments. This is why it is in American rulers' interests to harm the Chinese economy with trade barriers.
However, the isolationism that Friedman discusses would not alter the trends, but would harm the people of the world -- nonetheless, the rulers' interests always prevail over yours -- it is not a question of free will. That's one reason "It's good to be the king."
1
When have the masters of trade engaged in anything but a fight for dominance? Is this really anything new? As others have commented, when China produced goods for our manufacturers cheaply, they were embraced as our god sent helpers, now that they compete directly we see them differently.
And, as for industrial espionage , I don't think the Chinese invented that.
3
Mr. Friedman, once again, demonstrates how he came to earn the moniker of "Great Explainer." This amazing column contextualizes the growing U.S.-China divide historically and provides easy-to-relate-to metaphors (digital/economic iron curtain, etc.) to elevate the importance of this inflection point in our thinking. Introducing or reinforcing the four baskets of (non) cooperation also lights a way for us to evaluate and galvanize policy alternatives, investments and actions. Quite a feat in a single column. Thanks.
4
I doubt the desired re-coupling will incorporate the radical (charged word these days) changes that can deliver us from the consequences of rapacious growth and consumption. We have a hundred years of the greedy old game fusing our collective spine. When we American and Chinese apes improve our relationship, it will be the same old game. Money talks and the planet walks.
2
Mr. Friedman makes some valid points. A lot of global prosperity over the past four decades has come from globalization and the free-flow of people, capital and ideas. As he well knows, this is not a bilateral phenomenon. The world as a whole became a much smaller place. But to Mr. Friedman's point, while China was winning without fighting, the US was doing the opposite. Global trade is secured through the protection of the US Navy. We secured global shipping while outsourcing our lowest value-added industries to the developing world.
Initially, it was textiles, toys and sneakers. But now it's advanced manufacturing. China isn't content with that, and so intends to continue moving up the economic ladder by any means necessary. In truth, that has been their plan all along. And if they have to steal intellectual property to do so, that's completely fine by them. They do not care about international law. They only abide by it when it suits them.
We should never have helped build the Chinese economy. There were so many other options for cheap uneducated labor 40 or 50 years ago that didn't require us having to deal with Mao and his descendants. I guess people like Mr. Friedman assumed the Chinese would liberalize over time, but that clearly hasn't happened.
A stick-and-carrot approach only works if you're willing to brandish the stick from time to time. We have plied the Chinese with carrots for too long. It's past time we got the cane out of the cupboard.
Very important topic and Mr. Friedman is right that the problem started long ago when Trump was just another spoiled rich kid in New York City.
An educational system that focused entirely on Western Civilization led American leaders in the late 20th Century to underestimate the competitive potential of China. Racism also led us to underestimate the ability of the Chinese Communist Party to outsmart American corporate leaders. We never would have made this mistake with the Russians because they have blue eyes. Our lack of training in Communist ideology also led us to believe that the industrialization of China would lead to an embrace of democracy. All due to the tunnel vision promoted by a view of history called "Western Civilization."
Hiring rural Chinese to build our consumer goods while laying off rural Americans severely damaged the American labor movement and it was good for the bottom line, but in doing so we gave China access to the industrial knowledge that had accumulated in our country due to the success of 19th Century protectionism.
Now that Chinese Communists have built their own independent Internet system they can now control their population just as effectively as advertisers can control the minds of our poorly educated and pitifully divided working class.
It is too late to go back to protectionism. The horsepower has already left the barn. Finding a solution will be challenging.
Written as if America did not win the cold war without firing a shot.
Shameful, just plain shameful
In spite of the rational arguments behind the conflict, it is hard to imagine that any nation that perceives itself as a hegamon will allow a serious competitor to surpass it. You would have the same divide between the US and India if India were to threaten America's perception of itself. That is why I like your last sentence about the apes.
We had an effective way to manage the growing pains of China’s ascension; it was called the TPP. Trump blew it up, because he’s an insecure, petulant tyrant.
2
"How can we not be fixated on a president who daily undermines the twin pillars of our democracy: truth and trust
And the twin pillars replaced with self-serving Turpitude: Immorality, corruptiion, and depravity. What a guy, what a guy.
2
"Unfortunately, Trump has deployed a totally disjointed, impulsive “America First” strategy that has ended up “America Alone” — and weaker. And Xi has been no better."
I realize that the NYT is the liberal bastion, but, just a question. What was Obama's strategy? We see how well his Iranian and Syrian strategies worked out. Was his China policy on par with those?
I will say, at least you did have the courage (and I call it courage, because the NYT is allowing you to blame someone other than Trump for something) to blame Xi, as well.
2
The US will become the next North Korea if Trump and his supporters have their way: a well armed, poor, ignorant, isolated, dictatorship with a tiny , rich, paranoid ruling class. Remember his love affair with Kim Jong-un ?
2
Tom, still want to be China for a day each year.
Stoking the old war machine. What country don’t you have military in to protect your corporations.
Sir, jaw jaw before war war.
Why would I trust the U S.
Whenever ‘America’ goes Trump we just close the border until you come to your senses. You need the rest of the world more than we need you.
OK. Let's talk Xi Jinping:
Remember Communism? Mainland China police brutality in Hong Kong demonstrations?
Remember the recent outbreak of pneumonic plague in China - it can travel like it did in the Middle Ages - that doctors could not talk about on the state-controlled Chinese internet because they were blocked by the government?
And, let's talk Manichaeism: George Bush II. Look at all the trouble his simplistic world view - the good, the bad, and the stupid - got us into. Remember Iraq? The evil Sadam Hussein and his WMD that didn't exist?
Well, at least we don't have to worry about Manichaeism with Trump. With him - the grifter, the liar, the crook - it's all evil.
See? You were right: We can't stop talking about Trump!
2
The fundamental problem in our economic and political relationship with China is that its government is still a rancid Marxist-Leninist-Maoist totalitarian surveillance state that murdered millions of its own citizens in the past and today harvests organs from prisoners, brutally oppresses religious minorities and believers of any stripe, occupies Tibet, threatens many of its neighbors, and uses nuclear blackmail via North Korea to harass Japan, South Korea, and the US.
The boorish and appalling DJT does not accept their malevolence and in that he should be supported.
If we want a better, peaceful relationship with China, the US and its allies must aim to overthrow the Chinese communist regime and establish there a government committed to liberty and the rule of law.
1
Totally disagree with Mr. Friedman.
1
How can the US lose to China since we have " God's chosen one "at the nation helm?
3
Who knew that any other country and leader could ever think that they and their nations should always come first with their own variation on Donald Trump's methods of mad malign natonalist mayhem?
1
"The World-Shaking News That You’re Missing?"
It's not US-China relations. It's the other headline here today at the NYT:
‘Bleak’ U.N. Report on a Planet in Peril Looms Over New Climate Talks
You cannot have a thriving economy when the entire planet is on fire. Priorities!
462
A big part of the problem is that the US projects their own "self interest" and "imperialist" and "empire-building" mentality onto China. The US powers-to-be have had this delusional idea that China wants to conquer the world and with this developed a scarcity and somewhat paranoid mind set. And, now, add in Trump's "fake" everything and we worse off than ever before.
I also believe that US corporations were greedy, left the US for China to take advantage of no labor laws to maximize profit, and did not really care about anything else. In other words, created there own problems not dealing with important issues before hand, eg, intellectual property rights, etc.
2
"But no one seemed to notice that almost exactly 30 years after the Berlin Wall fell, a new wall — a digital Berlin Wall — had begun to be erected between China and America."
The assertion seems to an after-thought to the recent Kissinger remarks of a new Cold War between China and USA.
2
I like to think of Nixon and Kissinger flying back from China on Air Force One. They know they have, in effect, signed the biggest trade deal of the century. And they know that they have also signed the death warrant for American manufacturing and the American working class. The question is whether or not they care. Did they have interest in or ideas about softening the blow? Or did they leave that problem to future administrations with the hope that they would be remembered only for their historic act and not for its consequences?
1
I admit that I don’t know much about the economics of it all, and I believe your colleague who described it as “trying to unmake an omelet”.
But really? You’ve resigned yourself to Orwellian oversight? And China’s brutal, inhumane treatment of people who don’t assimilate? And when their censorship creeps on to American soil?
Trump, as usual, has bungled the start of a decoupling, but something has to change. The values of the Chinese government threaten our own.
It's time that the media help keep their readers/viewers better aware of what is going on out there. Helping us to learn about important economic issues as what the TPP would have done for us instead of focusing on Trump's latest tweets. It's important to get that information out there. Unfortunately they won't since they make more money covering stupid stuff. What does that say about our society?
The past 40 years we have been attacking our own middle class and the unions that helped create it. That slowed our growth.
Two years ago our government was taken over by Russia, and the descent into an oligarchy and kleptocracy petrostate has accelerated. Our only close friends are the murderers Putin and Bin Salmon.
China is posed to lead the world in 40 years. It will have the largest middle class in the world. And an economy developed around batteries, solar power, electric cars, and sustainability.
There is virtually no way the US can regain world leadership after Trump, McConnell, and the Federalist courts destroy all our democratic institutions.
Oh, sorry, I meant Democrat institutions. That's the Republican's way of putting down democracy...they intentionally mangle it grammatically to confuse their flock.
4
yes the forest is burning. It’s the climate disaster heading toward all of us and the US and China are number 1 and 2 emitters and they worry about spying and not being dependent on the other for tech . Now if they just cooperated on climate .......
1
"The World is Flat". "A Digital Berlin Wall". Mr. Tom, one of the few remaining unabashed apologists for his and his corporate mates (i.e. Hank Paulson) version of globalization, is now asking us to get all hot and bothered about some new tech divide with the one of the countries that is currently using nearly every scintilla of 4th generation technology to create and even more perfect totalitarian state. The globalists told us 30 years ago that "integration" with China would not only make us all safer but it would also begin to insinuate democratic values into this hegemonic monolith. Tom, there is much more to this story than you are portraying here and shame on you for not admitting to at least some of the downsides to nearly everyone on this planet who is not wealthy from the first round of "Chinese integration" and globalization generally. Until you do very few of us will be worrying much about the new "digital Berlin wall". We have must more to worry about like the spread of China's version of fascism.
2
This "decoupling" should have started a long time ago. Better late than never.
Yes, you propose Obama’s Asia pivot. The TPP was the best answer. We should be asking who lost China? Trump, Hilary and Bernie all lost it.
Perhaps we interest our own young people with the possibility of advanced education leading to exciting, well paying jobs in leading edge tech.
Oh yeah, I forgot our business owners moved these jobs offshore.
No one talks about the real capital. A well educated and highly motivated society.
Is it because the well educated will see the real picture in this country? A small number of extremely rich staying extremely rich right under their noses? Government representing the rich? All the while the climate goes into the dumper?
Keep em dumb and well fed and you can take whatever you desire.
1
Not entering into the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement was a big mistake.
1
If US can tolerate Trump, so can it mediocrity in technology, high prices and low profits. Then it may not need more than 10% of its defence expenditure, because mediocrity is the best defense.
2
Another thoughtful, well-crafted article from TLF.
Keep 'em coming!
So ridiculous. If you believe that :
“I still believe that the most open systems win — they get all the signals of change first, they attract the most high-I.Q. risk-takers/innovators and they enrich and are enriched by the most global flows of talent, ideas and capital.”- then we have nothing to worry about because China is the most closed system in earth
I agree this is getting quite serious. I also agree that Trump should gather his friends and allies around the world and ... oh wait - HE HAS NO FRIENDS AROUND THE WORLD. He has systematically alienated everyone who could help us solve the China problem. I imagine the sound of crickets when our fearless leader makes his impassioned speech at the UN. Hey everyone, let's band together and ... as he veers off on a tangent about his enormous inauguration crowd. Biggest ever I'm told. Get out and vote people!!! It's not a spectator sport.
Perhaps the two countries do not see the fire burning around them because the political parties in power do not care about anything but power. The parties are only interested in economics as long as that gives them power. Ultimately, the Communist Party desires unfettered power as does the GOP. The two parties are very similar. Trump's GOP couldn't care less about anything but power. It only supports issues that will give it power. This is why there is no attack on China's human rights record. Believe it or not, the State Department has an office of religious freedom headed by former Kansas Governor Sam Brownback. What a horrific joke!
Lest readers forget, Mr. Friedman infamously proclaimed that "the world is flat," preaching the perennial fable that all of the players -- American corporations, American politicians, and foreign actors -- would benignly, naturally, be guided by the invisible hand of the almighty market into a new globalized corporatocracy. (Never mind that Adam Smith was a nationalist.)
It's so far beyond *way too late* to rein China in without "decoupling," except that we're doing it after our corporations and politicians gave away the farm. And don't forget that the Chinese have destroyed their (and our) ecosystem and human rights in the process (although they have enabled our tech companies to test cybersurveillance as others test weapons for us elsewhere).
Remember that Friedman was and is Cheerleader #1 for the New York Times on the subject of globalization. He still hasn't apologized and still doesn't have a credible walkback or plan.
In other news, life expectancy in the hollowed out American Rust Belt has broadly declined since 2010. Friedman hectored them in his book; now they're either wearing MAGA caps or pushing up daisies. Guess they just didn't retool their skills fast enough.
1
More politics! More high finance! The climate emergency is the only issue that matters. Without action and solution, nothing—absolutely nothing—is of consequence. Think.
1
And yet somehow Ivanka is allowed to get new trademarks and make millions from her slave labor products in China.
What farcical hall of mirrors is this nation now anyway?
China is a communist country. For 44 years we fought Russia but eventually we kinda, sorta beat them. Then right around the time we won, we started sending our dollars and jobs to China on an unimaginable scale - completely countering our prior ideological and economic principles. Greed and the totally naive notion that somehow China would become a democracy drove this deluded engine. It may be too late to close this Pandora’s Box but at least we can acknowledge that it’s not “all good” and that in fact it’s “mostly bad”.
The real shame here is that Trump should be standing up for Hong Kong people and announcing more tariffs on China as a result of China’s meddling there. That would give cause for our allies to follow suit and potentially push China into a less aggressive posture worldwide.
I've nothing but fear when two individuals (Mr. Pauslon and Mr. Friedman), both of whom in thought / deed helped to constitute / embed the practices that they now depict as the dire state of US-Sino relations, feign an objective step back to assess the situation, and tell us what ought to happen next. There's a dynamic to Big Power conflict that transcends talk of the US / China clamping down on unfair or threatening trade practices. I suspect that what Mr. Friedman's thinks are the causes of the reversal are actually its effects, and figures like Mr. Paulson and Mr. Friedman with their very public roles ought to be part of a study (not theirs) of how actors, not mere bystanders, like Mr. Paulson and Mr. Friedman and the institutions they represent helped create this mess.
1
Mr. Friedman, I would also point out that under Xi Jinping, China has gone from being a one party system to a one man, autocratic system. If we hold our democratic values dear, then taking distance is the first correct step.
I agree with virtually everything you wrote, Mr. Friedman, But you left one issue out. In order for this issue to be resolved, we must have bright and objective talent in the administration to tackle it. What bright and objective talent would want to work in this White House?
254
I believe that Obama's transpacific trade agreement(the gold standard of trade agreements proclaimed by HRC until she found it inconvenient) provided the unified front that this article advocates by not allowing China to expand it;s markets without necessary reforms. It avoided the collateral damage to american industries that resulted from the self proclaimed "deal"maker pulling out of the agreement to pursue bilateral trade negotiations via tariffs. Another example of Trump's need for self aggrandizement creating unnecessary havoc.
1
A few years back this author wrote a book called “The Earth is Flat”, a positive upbeat tome about global integration. Any mention of a divide with China? None. No mention of a digital divide or any other, be it ethics, morality, system of government, economic differences, nothing.
Along comes Mr. Trump, and suddenly this country wakes up to the China threat. Where were you before the Trump presidency? The readership of this paper may never acknowledge it, but it was Trump who was prescient enough to know that our enemy is China, and the breaking of a Russia - China alliance is a good idea. That he lacked the political skills to implement anything is a different matter.
93
This could not be farther from the truth. We knew about Huawei being a vehicle for espionage as early as 2010. They way we handled it then was counter espionage to find out what they were doing and why. That system worked well up to the inflection point where China gained the upper hand. Trump had nothing to do with this. He simply turned his xenophobic world view into policy.
35
@Deepinder Singh
"...the breaking of a Russia - China alliance is a good idea."
But did we have to get in bed with Putin to do it, and along the way alienate our most trusted allies?
21
@Deepinder Singh Mr. Friedman is an interesting op-ed writer. His views dovetail with the neoliberal economics that have shaped the US economy since at least 1980 and arguably since the Johnson administration. His style is that of a debater. He is more interested in the arguments than the conclusion reached. Yesterday's arguments are no longer of interest. He is focusing on tomorrow's arguments.
Mr. Friedman's good fortune is that so few readers share your memory.
11
I feel that on one hand Chinese have deviously manipulated the free flow of Capital that many Western nations deploy by providing low cost for manufactured goods and then by blatantly stealing it, on the other hand the Western nations have been slow to react because of the greed of profits made by them by producing goods in China and also by the vast Chinese market they were after.
Now the chickens have come home to roost.
"Because the peace, prosperity and accelerations in technology and globalization that have so benefited the world over the past 40 years were due, in part, to the interweaving of the U.S. and Chinese economies."
It was this sentence that made me stop immediately and realize that Mr. Friedman, once again, doesn't have a clue what he is talking about or appear to know what is going on around the world. Peace? Tell that to the Middle East and Afghanistan. Prosperity? Tell that to the Brexit states here in the U.S. or the economic unrest happening all around the world.
Demagogues like Trump always help ruin their countries from one of the first Alcibiades in classical Greece to one of the last Chavez in Venz.
One of two things will happen re China trade in the next year. If Trump sees the polls show him trailing the democratic nominee badly (like he is now with Biden), he will hurry up and sign a sham deal with China, ie status quo like he did with the North American agreement.
If he is ahead in the polls, and gets re elected China will wait him out until he is term limited and get a favorable deal since China has more patience than America.
2
If Friedman ever listened to people who weren't elites, he might actually learn something. Sounds like his rich friends at the top are getting nervous about the ridiculously profitable international system they've been riding for the past thirty years.
83
We don't need geniuses from Asia pouring into the U.S. Why can't they make their country great? Why is Friedman aghast that Chinese nationals might stay in China to make their country great or Indian nationals staying in their country to do the same?
We want China and India to catch up to the U.S. so their citizens don't have to flee. We want China and India to become wealthier, at least I do.
Both China and India combined have over 2 billion people. The goal should be to get their countries up to a higher standard of living. The goal should not be for the U.S. to pull away from China and India to become richer as we drain their brains.
It's not a bad thing that China and the U.S. decouple.
40
@Sirlar
There is the matter of the finite world and competition for resources by vast populations that will be the theme of this century and beyond.
14
@Sirlar One of the issues associated with "decoupling" from China is that further relations with them will be less amicable than prior. I also find it odd that you assume that this situation is zero-sum in the way that we would "drain their brains", when it's about being more open.
7
@Sirlar Clyde Prestowitz, who was a trade envoy for the US at least a decade ago, wrote a book on exactly how the Chinese were planning then to become the number one economy in the world. This IS NOT NEWS BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.
But between the time he wrote his book and the present day we had a major recession (almost another Depression) to deal with and the undermining of the US election system by the Republican Party which has put them in charge for the past decade in a majority of the states and in the federal government. The overall incompetence of the Party is hidden from view because most of what they focus on is how to advance business interests, as if those and national interests were one and the same.
The US continues to be a nation distracted and going down the tubes because it is led by those who think reality is a TV show.
29
"The ripping sound you hear is the sound of two giant economies starting to decouple."
Actually, Tom, that ripping sound you started hearing in the late 80's was Jack Welch firing American workers and shutting down GE factories here in the US so that he could move his plants offshore and get a bigger bonus for himself.
You make it sound like American management did not LEAD the integration of China and America. In fact, American management aggressively led the destruction of American manufacturing and the "integration" of the Chinese people and country into its profit plans.
American management was willing to give away their patents, American workers, American infrastructure and America's very future in order to get access to cheap labor in China which enabled managers to get? A bigger bonus.
Now? Well, China, WENT ALONG for a long time. Turned Chinese people into slaves for Apple at Foxconn making $8-$17 a day. Of course, the Chinese people working at all those, initially, American technology plants, LEARNED how to do stuff. They saw how to make stuff.
While our folks waited in the Jack Welch unemployment lines, the Chinese worker was learning for no money.
Now? The Chinese have learned enough. They don't need Jack Welch anymore.
The ripping sound you hear is the beginning of the final unraveling of the US Economy as the world's largest. A place soon to be occupied by China.
Jack Welch will be proud.
536
@Michael ----Well Said!
This is probably a good place to add that the Friedo Bandito never invaded the corporate boardrooms to force the American companies to expand in Mexico.
Similarly, Dudly Doright and his band of merry Canadian Mounties never forced American business to move plants to Canada.
These acts were committed by our wonderful wall street wizards to increase profits.
Is treason and treachery required learning in MBA school?
53
@Erik Nelson
Thanks Eric.
Folks want to believe that politicians are to "blame" for the fact that America has sold itself out to overseas entities. Software, manufacturing, etc.
But, that is not even slightly true. What is true is that Americans, on the ground, in management, in corporations, sold America out to get bigger bonuses, some increased stock growth (but this was second to the bigger bonus), and to create a lie about leveraging "offshore" capacity.
Americans sold Americans out. Now? Well, we will find out that the Chinese will not be willing to sell the Chinese out going forward.
Like Germans never sold other Germans out.
Like the Japanese never sold out other Japanese.
Selling out your friends will have big consequences for everyone.
American culture is unique in the willingness of Americans to sell out America for a one year increased bonus.
89
@Michael You are correct, but none of what you say is a bad thing.
It is good that over a billion people are now more in command of their futures than before. I'm very happy that China has succeeded, even if that comes at some cost to the US. It creates a more equitable world.
4
I have a friend from Hunan. This person is thirty years old, university educated, well travelled. This person is now a HK résident working for Credit Suisse as an attorney. Highly capable, diligent, intelligent. OTOH, this person has a photo of Mao in parents’ living room. This person told me what is being done with Xinjiang is very good and necessary. This person refused to even consider perusing the documents which NYT published recently concerning the detentions and mental reprogramming of Uighurs. This person is preparing for LSAT and wants to study law at Columbia or NYU. I am dumbfounded and worried when China’s best and brightest can balance this way. In my view, let this be an example of why one cannot trust those who are chasing an Western education with a Chinese passport. They are already brainwashed and controlled.
152
@Suburban Cowboy Might we be equally worried about our own citizens who refuse to digest news from CNN or from Fox?
32
@ChairmanMetal
At least we don’t have to give resources to an outsider like that, surely? We also don’t want to inadvertently train a future suppressor.
5
Statements to me from personable, diligent Chinese postdoctoral students working in a federally-funded biomedical research lab:
1. “There is too much freedom in America.”
2.”I will go back home and start a business making the kits that I have learned to use here.”
29
Don't be alarmed. Trade wars are easy to win.
1
The dynamics of trade, technology and security involving the U.S. and China are serious and complex. America is currently handicapped by having a simpleton engaging with China on these matters.
2
This is a great article ! Most clear and goes exactly to the point
Too late for the TPP? Obama was exactly right.
2
The biggest problem with China and the USA relationship is NOT doing enough to stem the irreversible problem of climate change.
Look at the carbon going in the atmosphere from iron production smelting plants making air unbreathable. To make it through the day in parts of India and China, it requires wearing a white-paper-filter-mask.
Cooperation is more important than competition.
Let's focus on long-term priorities --- of a more serious nature.
Quick --- buy up all the houses you can --- in Gangi, Italy --- for "just one euro."
The air is fresh there, but --- there are no jobs or young people staying in Gangi. The death rate is out-pacing the birth-rate.
Who should be concerned?
"A few are guilty, all are responsible"
3
China is a threat in technology. They used to be a third world country who made "advances" in technology by stealing secrets from other countries (often the United States), but now they have a powerful research and development infrastructure fo their own.
Artificial intelligence will be the dominant disruptive technology of the 21st Century. China is on pace to be the world leader by 2025. They have a big lead already in G5 wireless technology and our response is to bully anyone who agrees to work with them. They've also cornered the global market in rare earth metals which, despite a name that makes them sound trivial, are essential components in computer memory, rechargeable batteries, cell phones, fluorescent lighting and much more. They're also taking the lead in renewable energy technology.
The United States used to be the world leader in innovation, but we've become so complacent that China will eat our lunch. And it's not just China. in 2018 we were 11th on the Bloomberg Innovation Index, down 2 places from 2017. So, while China is rising, the United States is falling.
3
@David Yet Huawei purchased critical components from Intel and Qualcomm, and made no attempt to pirate them. Why should they, when it was less expensive to buy them from the US? American and Chinese companies became dependent on each other, developing economic ties which reduced the risk of conflict. Now they have to duplicate all the technology at great cost. Blacklisting Huawei has cut off access for US manufacturers to the world's largest market.
A very good article, and the comments it stimulated are equally thought provoking. Many of the topics are seemingly over the head of most Americans.
How did the most educated and sophisticated society in the world get reduced to 8th grade mud slinging, rather than addressing the very serious issues of the day?
2
@John: The US blew out its brains with the specious notion that it is a divine creation.
1
Saner minds need to prevail. Policies ought to be formatted by career economic personnel, on both sides, with an eye to the future.
Short term goals and elevated political gamesmanship need to be laid by the wayside for the greater good of the world. At the end of the day, a country, in the future, cannot live and survive in isolation, integration is the way to go.
4
@Harish Alimchandani: The US system of randomly extreme malapportionment and misrepresentation is the biggest affront to intelligence in democratic politics.
Be careful of what the leaders will demand of us in this competition with China. They may ask us to give up the possibility of health care for all. They may say that laws and regulations that hamper our large corporations will make us unable to compete with China.They may try to convince us that the enormous CEO salaries and low taxes on capital gains are just compensation for patriots on the front lines of economic competition.
There is a danger that we will turn into a mirror image of our "enemy." After all, we can't let China get ahead in technologies to supervise the population.
What we need is more investment in education and infrastructure, and to fight climate change. What we may get instead is more investment in the machinery of war.
Interesting that China is way ahead of the US in rolling out electric vehicles, but Trump wants to take us backward. GM has a couple dozen new EVs being readied for China in the next few years. Why don't we have them here?
6
There is so much missing from this very interesting Op: Ed.
To understand Geo-Political issues, it is essential to understand the damage the Neo-Liberal Ideology has done to all major smaller Economies. It has created massive imbalance of wealth making some individuals obscenely rich and the rest poor and fraught with anxiety.
The Shock Doctrine and Regime Change wars pursued by the USA Empire; its never-ending wars have drained US financial resources. Without continuing Chinese support for the US Dollar, the US Economy can be collapsed at any time China chooses. China could right now launch its own gold backed Currency – goodbye USA Empire!
Whilst the US Empire was in the ascendancy it could force its own viewpoint regarding the patenting of world intellectual resources. The USA is no longer in the ascendancy – it badly needs to manage its decline to become like the rest of us.
China pursues its own Capitalist model and of course its own strategic agenda. It has the resources to do what the USA could only dream of doing – once. Unfortunately, hubris has undone the possibility of a soft landing for managing the decline of the USA; increasingly we seem to be on the way towards a massive thermonuclear exchange between USA and China/Russia.
Mr. Friedman is too focussed on his own agenda to see the bigger picture. Pity.
9
@Robert Jennings It's not likely that a democracy like the U.S. (even in its current state of decline, which I agree with you about) will ever act as unilaterally as China does with its single-party system. When I toured China with a jazz band in 2010 and 2013 I had the general impression that China is about 5-10 years ahead of the U.S. in implementation of technology, contrary to the typical spin in the U.S. Media. So until the U.S. can humble itself and learn from China's many successes, we are not likely to avoid the hard landing you talk about. But at least the Chinese in general respect American culture (especially Hollywood) and in many respects still want to be like us. In many ways, we are the ones responsible for our own decline as a result of the President's xenophobia and hubris, neither of which will help us advance to where China is now. And by demonizing Huawei we have cut off one of our possible vehicles to learn from China and benefit from its economic and technological growth.
8
@Robert Jennings
" towards a massive thermonuclear exchange between USA and China/Russia."
unexpected and classical non sequitor
@Glendon Gross I take most of your points; unfortunately, the US is a democracy in name only. The obscene amounts of wealth sloshing around mean that most elected representatives are bought by some Corporate interest or other [the Military/Industrial complex is one of many; see big Pharma etc] and shall never allow any possibility of the USA behaving like a democracy.
2
While China’s huge population gives them a large “pool” of labor, without free enterprise, it’s tech progress will always be limited. They may become the best at super-spy products - and mostly used on their own citizens - no one is flocking to China to offer their talent.
Canada may become our biggest threat in that regard. And deservingly so.
When will they build a wall to keep us from invading?
1
The most frightening thing is that the 7.7 billion people in this planet are planning things in terms that are the direct consequence of tribal domain and control of territory. As things stand now, I sense that there's not any future for humanity.
Our thoughts are linked to power and domain over the other, and although we've reached the point where collaboration is the key for our survival in this almost infinitely small place in the Galaxy,
it seems that nobody thinks in those terms and distrust and fear of the other rule, as it was the case for our ancestors that came from Africa, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, would be better defined as Homo "Idioticus"
7
The funny thing about espionage and technology is the river runs both ways. Instead of complaining and retreating (a Trump signature move) we should match or exceed China’s level of investment in technology research, intelligence gathering and infrastructure, 21st Century battle space dominance is about ideas, clouds, and keyboards, and less about guns. Just look at Hong Kong. We feel insecure in the relationship because we lost the upper hand as China has matched American investment in tech and education, and leveraged those assets to spy. The way to win is to play to win, not whine about the rules.
2
I don't know that I agree with this premise "...prosperity and accelerations in technology and globalization that have so benefited the world over the past 40 years were due, in part, to the interweaving of the U.S. and Chinese economies." Benefited the world? Don't you mean benefited the financial oligarchs? I thought Friedman himself had written extensively about the decline of the middle class over this period. I don't think it was a golden era for the majority by any measure - and Trump is the rash signalling the underlying problem.
6
Not surprisingly, Mr. Friedman bloviates about the financial sector and its Wall Street front men such as Hank Paulson concern about US/China relationship's impact on them. The need for "moderation" in this relationship of course has nothing to do with "internal" issues such as China's repression of minorities (e.g. Uigher, Tibet), it's state controlled economy making billionaires.
Why would that trouble America's version of ruling elite as long as their corporate interests aren't damaged? After all, our current tv and twitter celebrity playing president should be amenable to fixing what Paulson and Friedman are worried about. If not, they can just work to fund his replacement in 2020. They better. Otherwise they won't get what they apparently want with US/China relations.
The human rights violations? Well, guess the US can't use that lever any more, eh?
1
Another article in today's NYT, having to do with our collective bleak environmental future, included the line 'Sleepwalking towards catastrophe.' Apparently, this has as much to do with our economic future as well as our environmental future. I am not an economist but I recognize that economies are based on competition. Here, now, the two most powerful economies on Earth are embroiled in a competition that can only lead to some sort of catastrophe. The apes are fighting. The forest is burning. The poles are melting. Where do we, who are not sleepwalking, go for succor?
7
The biggest downside of the "wall" being created is that we are in planetary crisis and instead of uniting our energies, we are pulling apart. Climate change and the mass destruction of Earth's flora and fauna are putting every life on Earth at risk. Every single country, every single technological focus, should be turning toward saving ourselves. Instead we are fighting and dividing.
10
I live near the University of Ottawa and I cannot believe the number of dorms going up to house mainly foreign students.Also they are paying nearly 50 thousand a year.The US loss is a big gain for Canada.
14
Successive administrations from Nixon till George Bush have let China scam the system. It has allowed a authoritarian communist party and govt get away. So called business leaders and CEOs have handed over key technologies built over time by hard working Americans to Chinese. While Obama administration tried to correct this rightly with a multilateral approach, the current Trump admin is trying to fight this alone and headed for a loss- loss for American people.
4
@TruthAloneTriumphs
What, the people shopping at Wal Mart and electing these leaders have no complicity?
Then again one wonders why Apple makes Iphones in China!!!!
"The number of people who want to stay in India and work on local start-ups versus going to the U.S. has sharply increased in the last two years. And many of those who do go abroad now prefer Canada and Australia over America....."
Gee, people from India are mostly people of color. We know how Trump and his base feel about "those people." People of India are not blind to what is going on here in the U.S. Take a look at Trump's rallies for the evidence. No wonder they prefer Canada or Australia.
7
I think the US economy is more vulnerable to shortages of resources produced in China than China is exposed to restrictions on US technology exports.
The relatively open global trading regime in place since the 1980s has allowed individual nations to specialize based on comparative advantage. Recent trade and technology disputes may reorder this specialization regionally rather than globally.
Instead of US vs China, think the Americas vs Eurasia and Africa. That is certainly the way that China under Xi sees it. They call it Belt and Road.
5
I feel that a democracy can not compete with the totalitarian regime of Mr. Xi. That is why Trump wants to become a totalitarian king aided by Wall Street, Corporations and oligarchs. Apart from competing in technology and others, it is our ideals that should be the driving force vs. China!
1
The rise of China and all of the issues Mr Friedman raises should not surprise anyone who thinks long term.
Unfortunately we often think long term as over the weekend.
China has a lot of pluses and minuses---as do all countries especially the United States. What separates China is a long history of working with under nations, under the guise of 'tribute' and is very patient.
China is a remarkable nation that will one day dominate the world stage. The question is will they be an aggressor or stabilizer. It will depend on the times, the issue and the how well the world has integrated and adjusted to a new world order
2
China is likely to wait Trump out, unless Trump’s separate need for a deal is too good to pass up. It’s very simple - it’s what is best for Trump.
2
Things have changed, bigly. What's up?
So you say there is a "globalization system that the U.S. and its allies built since World War II" and that "Beijing has often been grudging about making any sacrifices to maintain it."
That globalized system began at least as far back as the 16th century. You cannot start in 1945 and think the past before then simply does not matter.
Just go back to 1919 when, following WWI, our ally China had their land in the Shandong peninsula, that had been controlled by the Germans, taken over by Japan and not returned to China. Meanwhile Taiwan had already been controlled by Japan since1895. It took China some 30 years of civil war and revolution to fully reestablish their sovereignty -- Taiwan and Hong Kong remained the exceptions. So who has sacrificed and who benefited?
After WWII an attempt to stabilize the devastated global order was indeed made, but not for totally altruistic reasons. And wrongs from the past were not simply made right.
Back to the present. Where we are we headed? No group is too small or too remote now to stand up for their legitimate interests. Formerly bullied peoples in China and India, and elsewhere are saying "enough."
So how will the scarce resources of our common earth be distributed -- geographically around the world and locally among the people? This is the issue, not China vs the US. We all have a profound task ahead of us and need to understand how we got here to begin to figure out where to go.
22
Fundamentally, these problems stem from different points of view on whether this is a zero-sum game or a positive-sum game. Small minds [think Trump] posture nearly every decision in terms of win / lose. This column articulates the positive-sum game that has actually prevailed for several decades between the US and China. Walmart and similar retailers of Chinese made products provided US consumers with low-cost tennis shoes. Chinese manufacturers brought millions of people out of poverty. Probably more effectively than any government foreign aid program we could imagine.
But things change ... China realizes they depend too heavily on US technology and IP. The US realizes it can't make iPhones in the US or without Chinese manufacturing capabilities. So, set points need to change for both nations. China appears to have both the patience and leverage at the moment. This makes MAGA transactional, zero-sum thinking ineffective if not dangerous. To adapt Ben Franklin's observations on the formation of our Republic, we have a functional, positive-sum global economy "if we can keep it". Arrogance will not help either the US or China in that effort.
5
Mr. Trump has one simple objective: sell off our assets, our coal, our oil, our gas, our companies, our properties whatever the oligarchs of Russia, the Middle East, and China will buy. Yup, by the next generation or two labor in the US will be working for the oligarchs, renting from the oligarchs, and paying off the oligarch's debt. Who will remember what democracy means.
7
While our government has policies that favor the fossil fuel industry, China has driven down the cost of solar energy to the point where it is competitive with coal and gas. We ceded this industry to them through our policies. But what do you expect when you allow corporate money to control our elections?
23
The Berlin Wall analogy doesn't fit. There are 600,000+ Chinese students at universities outside China. Few people passed the Berlin Wall (I was one) in either direction.
7
"economic integration between the two countries was supposed to mitigate security competition. ... [we] must now admit both that this hasn’t happened and that the reverse is taking place." All we did was to foolishly transfer resources to empower an authoritarian government - just like we did to empower a bunch of poor thugs in the Middle East and elsewhere with the resources bully us (OPEC) and to spread their corrupt and primitive violent dogma.
"The country benefited tremendously from the globalization system that the U.S. and its allies built since World War II, but Beijing has often been grudging about making any sacrifices to maintain it." Like the billionaire class that owns America and refuses to sacrifice anything to maintain the society that enriches them. Look at the tall wall between the have everything and the have nothing. Indeed, it was the wealthy ruling class that transferred jobs, technology, know-how to China for an additional buck - and here we are.
Trade cannot work when the two parties have incompatible ruling, power and philosophical structures and agendas. The idea that trade will change, modernize, open up a nation or culture doesn't always work - it usually simply empowers the worst.
"The only effective way to manage a relationship this complex is: 1) with an all-of-government approach." Like China's centralized government, but without authoritarian tendencies - hopefully.
Trump is working hard to make it China and the whole world versus America.
15
The US is poorly equipped - culturally and politically - for this intensifying rivalry. Culturally, we have no ability or willingness to prioritize things that require sustained focus and aren’t personally and immediately gratifying or entertaining. This carries over to our politics where we no longer elect the best and brightest, or demand that they work together to solve big and pressing issues. China has patience and centralized decision-making that can design and implement macro strategies spanning decades. Meanwhile we’re stuck in neutral (reverse?) with all of our time and energy spent on advancing partisan agendas as opposed to the nation’s interests. By the time we wake up, it will probably be too late to close the momentum gap. By 2040 there is no chance America is the foremost economic and military power. Every empire (and America does function as an empire) falls from the top spot eventually. Don’t believe me? ask China - before their fall from grace in the 19th century they were the dominant force in their part of the world for *thousands* of years. Compared to their culture and history, America is a precocious infant.
52
Seems as if we have more sophisticated technology than we can handle, with much, much more ahead on the horizon. Yet when it comes to moral leadership and the values it embraces, both sides are sorely lacking since these intangibles cannot be developed in labs. Will we ever learn that or will we continue to ignore it?
4
The corollary event to trump´s dismantling of our State Department and the untrustworthy nature of the US, our shifting tarriffs and questionable future is that other countries have already gone elsewhere for trade. Mexico, Canada, our European allies and East European and Asian countries no longer look to the US as a leader they need to respect or can trust. So China has a distinct advantage it did not have pre-trump.
10
Mr. Friedman makes no mention of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Obama fostered and Trump scuttled. I am very interested in reading more about the perceived benefits and/or flaws of the TPP.
29
It seems to me that recent UN warnings on climate change render all other discussions mute.
If we don’t get together to mitigate the damage we are doing to our climate, agreements, or lack thereof, on trade, technology, etc. won’t matter.
17
@Ralph Averill
Moot, not mute.
1
“The Whole World Versus China”
Not when they have so much cash being invested in buying other countries. Developing countries. Like in Latin America. Trump might be foreign to geopolitics but he is changing the world landscape and its balances of power. China is already in our own backyard and we are more and more... well, just here. In times when climate change demands globalization in order to combat its consequences.
Our retreat from the world created a vacuum that favors China, Russia and Turkey and Syria. I agree. It would be less complicated if it was only about trade.
6
When two elephants fight the grass suffers.
When two elephants make love the grass suffers even more.
6
Two words: Human Rights
We could see this coming 30 years ago after Tiannanmen Square, but greed blinded the West. How did we think this would not end badly?
They came for the Tibetans, and we said nothing
They came for the students in Tiananmen Square, we said nothing
They built the Great Firewall Of China, we said nothing
They harvest organs from prisoners, we said nothing
Now they build ubiquitous facial-recognition surveillance
Now they come for the Uighurs
Now they come for Hong Kong
What will we say about this?
Who are we?
15
@Gordon TikTok—do you know where your children are? China does. Never again is now.
We are a country that is systematically separating poor children from their frantic parents and placing them in camps where their families cannot locate or contact them. That’s who we are.
Ultimately, US consumers will pay higher prices, further increasing income disparity - one look at demonstrations and riots around the world should scare the US as well. China will expand relationships in the rest of the world, it's a big world. Trump says 'we hold all the cards'. This is and will be further disproven.
7
@Larry What will be proven is that Trump is woefully unprepared to be acting on the world stage.
@Larry My country of work and residence México has already changed its trading plans and relationships out of necessity. A trump-led and fool republican supporting faux democracy is not a good plan as a trading partner.
Has anyone considered that maybe, just maybe, separating into multiple technological/economic blocs might be a good thing?
One of the problems with having a complex, seamlessly integrated, "open" world economy is contagion. If something bad happens in one part of the world, there is very little redundancy to help stabilize the world, overall. We could wind up like the Soviet Union, where certain strategic items are produced only in one place, making a crisis in that location globally catastrophic.
If the world had, say three trade blocs (one centered in northern Europe, another in north America, and a third in China), a calamity in any one might be weathered better. Different approaches to policy and problems could be tried in three competing zones.
Economies of scale may benefit from a global approach, but Economics is more than just economies of scale.
11
Big difference between Huawei and its US counterparts, Microsoft and Apple.
Any of them could host a platform with nefarious, undocumented capabilities. But Apple has no motive -- indeed its business model requires enough transparency to induce customers to buy into its value-add schemes. And the same thing is true for Microsoft, applied to business customers instead.
But Huawei is in the business of linked global networks that depend on firmware embedded in physical devices only Huawei understands. Any society would find that an irresistible temptation.
What would we expect of a China so convinced of its existential superiority over other nations that it grants itself a free pass in everything such as the human rights of millions, and the peace that secure borders has mainly given the world since 1945? Stealing the IP of inventors in a world made possible by the critical thinking it disdains is the mildest form of soft warfare it practices.
11
@Kevin "But Apple has no motive..." I recently retired from a company that "had no motive" for espionage on China or Russia. However, 20 years ago that company got caught stealing tech information from both countries at the behest of our federal government. It was a scandal that was hush hush but I and many of my fellow co-workers knew. No one was happy but there was nothing we could do. Point is, not many people know what is being discussed behind closed boardroom doors. Example: How many people would like to know what Trump and Zuckerberg were discussing in their recent "private lunch".
10
@Jay schneider Thanks. Agreed, something more nuanced, like 'no inherent motive.' And yes, the US government has enlisted scientists and companies on all levels. often for objectionable projects.
Some readers out there will always see a false equivalency between the two superpowers. We can admit to a lot of warts and lie about them, in the sense the hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. without all of the executions, suppression,. concentration camps, and the 1984ism.
Good thing it's less fashionable nowadays to run with this attitude and say, for example, that Al Gore and George Bush are the same because they are both capitalists, like you and me too. Been there. and it makes what we can call the CLarence Thomas difference.
But I think this needs to be a different conversation, and the best way to make it so is to recapture our own country, to restore and improve our own credibility. Meanwhile, we can defend ourselves as a whole and should do it.
2
@Jay schneider Better yet, what was Putin ordering Trump to do during their undocumented meetings.
1
U.S., China divide?
I see no great division between the U.S. and China. Each has a perceived strength the other does not have, and each has a weakness. The strength of the U.S. is individuality, the individual mind who refuses to submit to the collectivity, which of course is good and bad, everything from the freakish criminal to the genius. The strength of China is collectivity, lack of individuality, which makes political order, especially ever increasing numbers in limited space, a greater possibility.
And China makes up for its weakness, lack of individuality, by seeking outside itself for what it perceives as the necessary accomplishments it cannot produce on its own, primarily scientific-technological innovation, while the U.S. talks up a big fantasy of freedom, the rights of people, etc. but every day moves closer to the collective organization techniques employed by China to keep political order. Essentially each believes, though they consider themselves quite different, in a sweet spot which can be discovered between individuality and collectivity, innovation and political order.
We can guess as world population rises, as the environment becomes worse, that the China model of organizing society will become ascendent and society everywhere will become more selective as to the individuality it chooses, concentrating on the scientific, technological, bureaucratic organization type person.
Hong Kong, Silicon Valley, other similar cities/situations, the model?
4
Business interest trumps human rights, is that what Friedman is saying? There is no right and wrong in the world, no good and evil, theory of relativity applies. A bully with ideology and practice that harkens back to the dark ages all the while being increasingly made stronger by up to date technology should be tolerated. Is that what Friedman is implying?
4
This has always been true, since the Tripolitan War, the Trail of Tears, slavery, etc. China has no monopoly on cruelty or greed - they probably learned a lot of their modern business tactics from us.
“Because the peace, prosperity and accelerations in technology and globalization that have so benefited the world over the past 40 years were due, in part, to the interweaving of the U.S. and Chinese economies.”
We live in different worlds; I see 40 years of the undermining of Americans’ prosperity, and 40 years of unregulated pollution from accelerated manufacturing. The “we” you and most economists refer to are businessmen, mostly now vast corporations, that leaped at the chance to fire America’s working and lower-middle classes and make their goods China—a choice the author championed for decades. It would have taken so little at the time to make good choices, for labor rights, human rights, good governance, regulation of untested chemicals. America didn’t lose to China, we lost to our own business class’s greed. In a sense, the Chinese did, too, because had we insisted on our principles then, a more vulnerable Chinese government might have been more reflective of democratic principles.
32
1) Trump's tariffs started the trade war. China merely retaliated.
2) The US should respond to China's support for research by supporting science here in the USA. Instead Congress has cut science funding for 50 years. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/Budget_0.jpg
3) We need friendly relations with China, Russia, and all other countries.
5
Speaking of the forest burning, the China vs. U.S. situation (so expertly recounted by Friedman here) implies need for global leadership all around—re: climate crises, in particular—that is confounded by Republican ideology that is isolationist, supported by Republican voters who really don’t see much of a problem with The Man cutting foreign policy alliances (not to mention cutting deals through shadow policy—“Isn’t that what a CEO is the White House should be expected to do?”).
High altitude capital can appreciate Friedman’s kind of plea, but its their luxury to either continue supporting Trumpism or else recognize enlightened self interest (thus, bailing on the GOP for a generation, while that party re-imagines itself).
The rank-and-file Republican voter doesn’t get animated about global levels of critical issues. Global leadership is somebody else's business. (It’s complex, abstract, technical—not relevant to working 2+ jobs just to stay above water.)
Trump appeals to that dissociative spirit with show biz, in terms of dismissive posturing that assures the Trumpist that things aren’t so bad.
So, where is the leadership going to come from? All the public anxiety about climate crises isn’t going to get that 8% per year decrease in carbon dioxide levels.
Trumpism celebrates the return of short-sighted avarice for profits, regardless of long-term crises that their consumers are happily distracted from by spiffy new options for couch potatoes.
6
Mr. Friedman' article is a good reminder of a need of strategic debate on what to make of China's rise and what should be done about it in a longterm strategy. The debate needs to involve not only U.S. but also Asia / Pacific and European democracies. I hope NYT's OpEd page will provide a forum for that debate going forward.
Building of digital Berlin Wall and bipartisan support for hardline trade negotiation with China are a natural American response to China's strategic direction toward greater spheres of influence around the world. China's rapid rise, backed by technology, economic might and military buildup all organized by an increasingly totalitarian government structure, prompts a vigorous quest for a new geopolitical strategy. It should include what should be the ultimate goal of that strategy.
I remember when the US was losing to Japan, and now it's China. I'm sure more global players will enter the fray. The US has been third world for a long time - I guess it has always been third world for racial minorities, now it's third world for anyone who isn't rich.
I agree with Friedman's premise, that there is much to discuss and consider, and instead we only rant about Trump.
However, my fear is the magician's trick. The magician ensures his audience is watching one hand and thinking ahead, while the other is doing the trick right now.
Just so, I fear there are effective decision makers doing things of great consequence right now, while the rest of us are watching Trump for what he might do next.
Decoupling with China is one. It is far more than a trade dispute, and it has already gone much further down the road to a new Cold War containment plan. We'll wake from Trump and discover it is all decided and done by the "responsible" hands behind the scenes, the ones who never accepted the end of the Cold War, tried for global hegemon, and did all these other wars we are mired in.
Also, we should note that China has done what Friedman says we need to do, to pull together all the disparate government efforts. They call it the Belt and Road Initiative. It is not a plan. It is an overall vision into which all the plans must fit. What sort of navy to build, what sort of trade pattern to pursue, what infrastructure to emphasize next, what help to give to which countries, it is an overall vision into which a vast array of plans are fit as they emerge.
We don't have anything like that right now. That is why our various plans are all over the place.
If we do have anything like that, it is kept hidden, from us, and probably from Trump too.
6
Thank you for this interesting article. The world´s two great powers are maneuvering to dominate markets, natural resources, and the digital future. Both are highly weaponized, and the chances of economic conflict spilling over into military conflict are real and terrifying. Also on today´s front page is a dire warning from the UN panel on climate change. It explains that emissions of greenhouse gases from the US and China are higher than ever and rising. So, which superpower will be the winner when the whole house collapses?
3
Remember, the wall came down 1989 because of the people in Leipzig. They've had enough from a system that offered no viable future, wasn't able to listening or care about problems of every day folk. I was there when the chants changed from "We are the people" to "We are one people". It meant that East Germans gave up on the hope to reform the GDR rather than becoming one united Germany because of the promise for a better life under a social market economy. East Germans figured they'd be better off individually with the freedoms of western democracy. Now ask yourself for a minute if the Chinese people would seek a solution to their problems because of what western societies have to offer.
6
It seems the crux of the rivalry between the US and China comes down to dynamism versus stability. Gregory Bateson, an anthropologist who worked with Margaret Mead and also a cyberneticist, viewed unstable or schismogenic societies as ones that value competition, maximization of value and exponential growth. More stable societies value balance (literally and figuratively), art and religious ceremonies. He also saw energy and climax as limiting factors that restrain unstinting instability. However, he reserved a role for government to bring about more a more stable ethos. It seems the US could use more stability and China could use more dynamism.
2
@David
Great comment!
Friedman is correct to highlight the growing rift between the People’s Republic and the United States as perhaps the greatest geopolitical threat to the world right now. The prospect of serious armed conflict between the two nations has for decades now been the province of speculative fiction and comedy writers, precisely because the economic interdependence of said countries has made the specter of war impossible.
The United States dominated the 20th century because of its tremendous economic might relative to the rest of the world, especially during the middle decades but really for the entire 100 year period. American policy makers have long grown used to their ability to play gatekeepers to global prosperity, but thanks to the rapid rise of China that particular leverage may be quickly eroding. Countries shut out from American technologies, banks, and logistics may simply be able to find equal or better accommodations under the Chinese economic umbrella. Then the United States has two real options: actually compete, not simply on GDP, but on giving people the most advanced experience of freedom and humanity possible; or, double down on the world’s most bloated military budget.
Americans may have their reservations about the Chinese system, some of which are valid, but at the end of the day world peace and prosperity requires cooperation between the two countries, not escalating conflict.
9
@Jerome S.
It seems alarmist to drift into musings about armed conflict between the U.S. and China. A breakdown of economic interdependence does not automatically lead to war. Diminished trade and the digital wall could lead new Cold War, sure.
Why would the U.S. and China risk getting into armed conflict?
I'll answer my own question with a scenario, but it would have to be a perfect storm: diminished trade means a large unemployed population pool that Chinese gov't wishes to give a rallying purpose of nationalism; privatized military profits driving a will to war in the U.S. to prop up our economy (per your comment on bloated military budgets); justified by securing resources of a third state (possibly in South America)...
Armed conflict is certainly possible, but hardly imminent or even inevitable.
1
Right on,Thomas, we are in an epical, epochal phase of our civilization.China is the challenge and America has to decide whether to lead, collaborate or fold.It is a global issue and China wants to be the hegemon ,Trump America does not want to be involved.We need--desperately ----a new president, new leadership that understands the engulfment strategy of China and citizens that can match the Chinese challenge .The new reality is : with China, not against China.
2
I am in the business of contemplating working with a Chinese vendor vs US and EU-based ones. Knowing that my industry has been publicly targeted by the Chinese government as part of its "Made in China 2025" plan, that my Chinese bidder is a beneficiary of this program, as well as China's "10,000 Talents" program in which Chinese who've studied and worked abroad are enticed with big sign-on bonuses and high salaries to return to work in Chinese firms (in fact, said vendor mentioned "returnees"), and that word on the street is that IP just walks away, I'm not inclined to choose them, tho' their bid is by far the lowest. And why don't I have the same trepidation as with a Western firm? I just have the impression that we have in common with Western firms very similar risk attitudes when it comes to unfair business dealings: not worth the long term impact, whether it's litigation or just a bad reputation. And to be sure, maybe the US was as conniving in the early part of the 20th c. stealing all manner of know-how from England or Germany. Perhaps this is the nature of the beast: as long as China's trying to catch up, the gloves will stay off.
9
@TSW ......you’ve got to admit that China is adept at identifying the weaknesses of capitalism and using them against other countries.
Every transaction is a trade off between what you may gain and how much you will lose to the Chinese manipulation.
Caveat emptor!
Friedman nailed it that “America Alone” is a losing strategy. We need allies and alliances with those nations supporting values and rules-based economic and security frameworks. Trump seems singularly determined to destroy all of our bedrock lasting relationships. Amazing how fast relations with even our closest allies (think Germany, France, Japan, South Korea) have taken a turn for the worse that’s may take a decade or more to repair. Assuming Trump is not re-elected. If he is re-elected, I truly fear for our future.
7
@JTFJ2
Agree. And beyond that, the U.S., with or without allies, should have a counteroffer for developing countries to China's Belt and Road initiative.
The idea of America Alone is a topic worth further exploration. In a dinner conversation last night with a European based executive of a large American tech company, he mentioned that China, India, and Europe could eventually form a very large connected trading block with the US. China is driving this idea.
1
I visited mainland China over forty years ago in August, 1978 when it was first possible for western tourists to travel from Hong Kong to Canton.
China Travel Service was strict and blunt in their warnings not to ask too many questions as the answers “ may not be any of your business”.
Despite this it was possible to visit an unmodernized China where everything was grey including the clothing. Locals stood in crowds at the train station to stare at the strangely dressed foreigners.
Visits to a commune for lunch and a boat ride down the Pearl River were uneventful. On the boat I spoke with our guide who questioned me in private about Nixon and why he got in trouble. China’s news was dry cleaned and edited.
Today’s China is essentially the same hyper controlled culture as we just learned from the exposure of reeducation camps for those who are not thinking properly.
9
Ever since China partially opened its economy and joined the World Trade Organization, there has been economic and political tension between China and the U.S. Trump’s economic nationalism, tariffs and boycotts of Chinese tech companies, has ratcheted up the conflict. China uses its huge market to force U.S. companies to give them technology and intellectual property, while the U.S. uses the predominance of the dollar as the international currency to manipulate China’s currency, finance, and trade. Completely normal economic conflict.
China aspires to be a regional power, controlling the South China Sea and influencing its neighbors through its economic power. It’s belt and road plan will make it a global economic power, using loans to gain influence in developing nations, in some cases replacing the U.S. as the major player. It has not expressed nor acted on becoming a political and military interventionist imperialist power.
China has no interest in a new cold war with the U.S., but Trump may blunder into one.
5
Friedman's analysis is predicated on dubious, likely false, assumptions. He writes, "Because the peace, prosperity and accelerations in technology and globalization that have so benefited the world over the past 40 years...." I will leave it to others to do the numbers, but it seems to me that the many "little" wars (e.g. Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc.) belie the claim that the past 40 years have been peaceful.
More questionable is the tacit assumption that "accelerations in technology" during that period are an unmitigated good that have "benefited the world." Yes, the technological developments have served to "disrupt" the status quo ante, but Friedman seems to have bought into Silicon Valley's self-aggrandizing mantra that "disruption equals progress" (a notion which, among other things, made Trump's 2016 candidacy seem acceptable to many people.)
From my perspective what has primarily been accomplished is the democratized ability to perpetuate lies as truth, the dependence of advanced societies on extraordinarily vulnerable infrastructure, and the commoditization of privacy.
While Friedman writes with angst about nation states, he ignores the fact that what the technology has done is allow non-state actors, whether groups or individuals, to wreck havoc and engage in consequent blackmail in a way the world has never seen. After all, who needs suicide bombers once there are drones and self-driving cars? And 3-D printers producing arms will make gun laws useless.
14
@Steve Fankuchen Yes to the down side of tech, it should be evaluated more. And add on that the 40 years of so called peace-prosperity is "subsidized" by huge fossil-fuel dependency and biodiversity loss. So in the next 40 years, we will also have to deal with these effects.
5
@Steve Fankuchen
So which president of which country decided he would run his precidency through social media, using lies and poor grammar to reach people who are too stupid to know the difference.
America has got over- obsessed with China on technology stealing and tried to stall China on this. This is only a temporary reprieve. Look at history. The west tried to stop Russia during cold war days. But it remained No 2 country in space, defence and military despite all that was done. Japan and Germany defeated in war also grew exponentially by using cross border technology. Anyone who wants information will somehow get it albeit with some delay and difficulty. After all America also does the same. So America will fail here over time.China is the new Japan. It is better to accept this reality and move on. Hiccups will harm and hurt America more than China though culturely and politically China is a gulf apart. Other countries will pick up the slack eventually benefiting China.
2
The ecosystem counts a lot, business people do not do direct investments like a plant totally oblivious to it and based solely on profits. That is why profits in business are called “the bottom line” and not “the entire story”. And America, with its openness, wealth, initiative and dynamism is still the far better ecosystem. Trump and the abhorrence of his years in the White House will go in one year’s time, America and its unique ecosystem persists. So will China’s horrible totalitarianism.
Let’s remember that all the ideas, concepts and trend are born in America. China observes, steals and astutely imitates. One of Trump’s most nonsensical decisions (which many forgot)? On the first day of his presidency to cancel Obama’s hard negotiated (with bipartisan support) TPP which was ment to create an economic and trade alliance in East Asia excluding China.
11
If the two largest economies in the world can't come to workable relationship across the several crucial areas of competition and intersection between them, resolving global problems like climate change may not be possible. Bragging rights about being top dog won't mean much in a world with its average temperature warmed by 3 or more degrees celcius. That is like a race to the bottom. Like it or not we are in it together, one way or the other.
11
We are not in it together and we will not be dancing Kumbaya with the totalitarians any time soon.
"U.S. officials argued that Huawei was guilty of facilitating Chinese espionage — or would do so in the future if China’s government asked it to — and had engaged in fraud, technology theft and violations on U.S. sanctions against Iran."
But now it seems that companies like Facebook are playing with the U.S. government quite nicely, and pretty much facilitating U.S. espionage, or would do so in the future. It has also engaged in fraud (by allowing it in their advertising and targeting), data theft (from all of it's subscribers) and various other violations that they just throw money at.
10
@James who says " America will not suffer much because of momentary a brain drain from Asia." Why, do you believe the lack of investment in US education will fill the gap and ensure our future competitiveness?
I fear not for the more conservative educational policies since Reagan-Thatcher seek to segregate education among the haves and have-nots the means to educate themselves of their offspring, the already visible result is a smaller talent pool now let alone what we will have in the future.
These are not new policies, they emerged out of the austerity culture promoted by such entities as the CNP (Council for National Policy) whose members such as Betsy De Vos now leading the charge and the Koch nebula, an elite sometimes characterized as of the "pluto-theocracy".
A divide-and-rule elitist culture that fails to promote the emergence of the Steve Jobs' et-al of tomorrow - just look at the stalled social-economic mobility and sédentarisation of Americans to see the damage done - then compare that unique American heritage to what is happening in Asia and Europe.
5
Mr. Friedman. Thank you for the interesting presentation.
Our businesses moved over to China, at a rapid speed. All to do with greed. China was smart,offering their cheap labour, land and the overwhelming market. It was a trap. They knew our weakness. Once China got knowledge how the Plants were run, they are now setting up the rules.
How did China amass all the wealth? A point made in your Opinion here - China did little fighting, no wars. We have been fighting wars everywhere, and for years. Yet, not much to gain. China is a totalitarian State. How did they catch up with us? Where is the problem?
We allowed China to be where they are today. The problem today, is that we just do not know how to handle them. In trying to seek that solution, it is leading to other situations, and could be worse than the threats we foresee on Climate Change.
7
Whatever our errors in the past the choice for the future remains.
Will we demand that our politics are defined by markets and the self interest that underlies them or human values, democracy, the very endangered ecology of the earth?
If we choose the right path we will [ likely ] have less growth, but not necessarily less justice, freedom, humanity.
If our trading partners do not meet basic standards we should simply shut it down. Shut the whole Goliath down for years if need be. Of course we could that time to discover our own values of course.
We have a whole lot of future to protect. Clean air? Clean water, the beauty of the earth- priceless.
All the trade in the world,all the money in the world will yield a landscape of destitution.You can not eat money. We will end with a starvation of riches, irony's of irony's.
A massive re- think is order, a grand ''re-valuation of values''
Do we believe in our values? We are finding out right now.
doing the right thing though nebulous perhaps has a lot of up side, the status quo is mostly a horror show, a hard wall.
Like Jesus said, '' just leave it, follow me''
Each in their own way works for me though.
4
@bluecairn 3.0
Grand thoughts, but try telling people to stop shopping at Walmart...good luck with that. (I'm not disagreeing, just saying that average Americans are short-sighted and self-interested.)
1
@bluecairn 3.0 "Like Jesus said?" You solution is to go back to the deity that allowed all this to happen in the first place?
Under trump, we are losing to China.
China is pushing technology forward at lightning speed. Trump talks about coal technology, and puts up barriers to tech innovation in the USA.
We are losing to China, and it will only get worse if trump stays in the White House
39
@S B
You're kidding, right? I'm not a Trump fan, but at least he started fighting back. And now we stand a chance. Under Clinton we'd still be handing over our national wealth and cluck clucking about it while the Paulsons, Bloombergs, Schwartzmans, Clintons, and Bidens of the world lined their pockets.
.
You can hate Trump all you want, but not for this.
79
@West Coaster If you really think about it,
Trump gets an "F" in everything.
4
@West Coaster
It's not that he's pushing back, it's how he's pushing back. Alone - without backing from our allies which would have made any action a lot more effective. For such a (self) touted deal maker, Trump is playing the worst hand. Not very smart.
14
“It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable “
China and USA has to do what it can to avoid war. Especially USA needs to reform. US is the stagnant part, gridlocked when it comes to healthcare,inequality,everlasting wars etc. China is living the American dream, they are on fire. US desperately needs to reform to become the best example. You used to be ,but something went wrong.
China will be the biggest economy and in a couple of decades they will push back militarily,not accepting US domination in their region.
8
@Martin Galster Really? Hong Kong is not the first domino to tip and a billion more ppl to eventually burst into open opposition to the party? I can attest that America has very many problems. China is the orderly life of a person destined for a nervous breakdown. That much denial, repression and obedience uses up too much energy and eventually there’s an implosion. Who knows maybe theres even a dimension to this in Denmark? Didn’t I read one third of the people chose anti-depressants?
6
Actually, by building artificial islands, with military utility, in South China Sea, Chinese are already pushing against our hegemony, also called established world order!
What I mean is, in short, that US should focus on reforming itself, not China or the Middle East.
To reform itself it needs to spend resources on its human capital ,education,basic research , infrastructure etc.
US ,to be a good hegemony also needs to be a good example, have a rich and satisfied population.
US has obligations and interests to insure Europe,South east and east Asia, Israel ,keep them secure and also be a political and economic leader or model.
I, as a Dane, wants US to succeed politically,economically and socially, that is how also we will be secure etc
Does freedom count for anything in the global economic dynamic? Do high-IQ risk-takers/innovators not care whether they live under democracy or autocracy, as long as it is basically capitalistic and they are making money? Or is the Chinese sense of ethnic/national identity stronger than their desire for individual liberty in the long run? Would Mr. Friedman please address those issues?
10
Xi is a smart strategist. Trump is neither. That's the story and it doesn't have a happy ending for the US or any free societies.
I did business in Hong Kong before the handover, traveling there twenty or thirty times. One HONG owner (Shipping Barron) showed me the thing he valued most in life. He pulled out an American passport. I wonder if he would do that today?
4
@MP Crugnale
Xi is hardly a "smart strategist". China was beavering away, stealing our tech to the tune of a few hundred billion $ a year, deploying Deng Xiaoping's hide-and-bide strategy until Xi came along and decided to go for the glory.
.
No, Xi is probably the least bright of all China's leaders since 1949. He has picked multiple fights with us and others and the whole world is now looking at China with clear eyes.
.
Say what you want about Trump, but he's the one who called out Beijing for who they are. He deserves a lot of credit for that, like him otherwise or not.
10
Tom,
I want to associate with Kishore Mahbubani and Henry Paulson on China. When you think about the challenge of global warming and how difficult it will be to convert the planet's economies to non-fossil sources of energy, the issues that appear to be dominating the foreign policies of its most powerful nations seem to be a huge exercise in mass psychosis.
It is absurd for the leaders of China, the U.S., Russia, Japan, all of Europe, and all of the industrial world to continue to ignore the reports of the international science community on the continued and increasing emissions of greenhouse gasses. The physics of global warming gasses is well known and it is grossly irresponsible for any of our leaders to worry about competition, economic trading alliances, military build ups, etc., while ignoring this global catastrophe.
We need to worry about how we can achieve the transition to non-fossil sources of energy without throwing the World's economies into chaos. Just think about the economies of the Middle East, Australian, Russia, and the national fossil reserves around the World.
I think about this question a lot, and I know the transition will take a couple of generations, even if this becomes the #1 international security policy objective of all of the nations of the Earth.
It is time to wake up, throw off the chains of our unthinking leaders and develop very cheap non-fossil electricity. With cheap electricity we might be able to make it as a species.
34
America still has a lot of cards to play. Indians can increasingly go to Canada and Australia all they want but those places will never have the same scale as the US, both having smaller economies than California, just one of our 50 states. China has scale but it lacks diversity— unless you’re Chinese, you will quickly find yourself to be an outsider there, and you won’t have any say in local politics or government affairs, little say in cultural exchanges. The US has scale and diversity. Despite Trump, it still has a bright future.
18
@SP Western Canada, especially the Vancouver area has many Chinese Nationals. Many are wealthy but Canada is a cheaper bet for them because the investment bar is much lower to merit a Canadian Green Card equivalent , about ⅓ of the US bar.
3
@SP
The U.K. economy is also smaller than the economy of California.
2
China and Russia have long wanted to end the global rule of the US dollar (petrodollar, intel debt settlements in dollars, dollar as reserve currency, US bonds as the safest investments, the Washington consensus enabling Western corporations (mainly US & German) to buy up (real cheap)national assets in any nation (Amazon forests, lithium in Bolivia, etc. and most of all in the future, water). Even Germany is nervous about staying devoted to the dollar. Unlike Russia, China has aimed to and has largely accomplished creating a vast middle class alongside the plutocracy (very similar to the uSA). China is quite capav=ble of creating a domestic economy not dependent on trade with the US. Now it is being forced to do so.
Will India stay with the dollar, or join Russia and China in creating a new international currency? Maybe. But it's hard to trust the Chinese or the Russians on financial rules. Australia has already declared that in any serious US-China dispute it would have to go with China.
The aftermath of the US "wars of liberation" in the mddle east have been a disaster. Those wars worked, in the sense that they were waged largely to frighten richer middle eastern countries into not abandoning the dollar the way Saddam Hussein and Libya's Khaddafi did.
India and Germany are the keys to where things will go, China-Russia or the USA? The Nordics are already going Chinese. Despite numerous US military adventures there China is taking over Africa.
7
Friedman is right to call out the Trump administration on its ill-advised policies toward Chinese scholars and researchers.
Xi Jinping and the boys (and yes, they're basically all boys) in the Beijing Kremlin do high fives when the US clamps down on Chinese graduate students. This might not be the case were China still eons behind the West in technology. But this is definitely no longer reality. Moreover, China can send its best and brightest to Europe or Japan if America doesn't want them. Why the high fives?
i) China wins a soft power battle when the US discriminates against Chinese scholars, because the country simply appears hostile, bigoted and unreasonable in the eyes of millions of Chinese (basically, America's popularity declines).
ii) And yes, the need for talent works both ways: America denies ITSELF the shot in the arm of top technological talent when it shuts itself off from foreign researchers.
iii) Finally, the dynamic Beijing REALLY fears -- a brain drain to the higher salaries, greater freedom and cleaner air of America -- is dealt with nicely, without China having to lift a finger.
WINNING!
(Yes, China's dictatorial regime is a long term challenge to America and the West. But we need to be SMART about the response. I haven't seen any policies yet out of the Trump White House that could reasonably be characterized as "smart.")
4
I always find it interesting when Friedman quotes Hank Paulson and James McGregor as the wise old men of China. If they are so wise and essential, why is the situation in such dire straits today. These problems have existed for decades. Did these gurus misunderstand the issues, or simply fail to take action on what was well known since the 1990s, and take their profits? Those of us in the American business community who argued for and insisted on an equal playing field were ignored in the Embassy, American Chamber of Commerce, in Washington, or visiting politicians. The money was flowing to Amway, Coke, Pepsi, McDonalds, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Intel, while the telecom industry, my industry, was prohibited from entering the country. I had to adjust my business plan, and owning or managing small and medium sized enterprises in China is a day to day struggle, like anywhere else. When I see the major banks and corporations so concerned I just assume the easy money must have stopped flowing. But really, how are you going to decouple from China when, for example, the country manufactures almost all US technology products, even DoD products, and 450,000 Chinese students are keeping the US education afloat when the federal government and states are de-funding universities? Paulson is right on one thing though. Prosperity is fragile, and we need to manage this relationship very carefully.
15
To make it more plain: What we should be doing - to advance democracy, human rights,labor standards, environmental standards, the rule of law-Is to trade with partners that meet those standards on a ''free trade basis'' give or take.
The other countries that can't or won't meet those standards should be relegated to second class status and not allowed into the 'prosperous circle' until they also adopt the above mentioned standards.
This would without doubt provide a strong incentive for those societies to bring their political systems into accord with the ''clean ones''
Of course this would have hurt the ability of capital to take advantage of the existing systems, their abuse of their labor and their abuse of their environment among others.
Capital would not have been a happy camper under such arrangements and it is not a mystery why our policies would end up being so favorable to capital.
If we were committed to advancing human rights, democracy and environmental stewardship of the earth we certainly had the opportunity to do that.
Big Corporate, sheer wealth, the military industrial complex, would not have been on board with that, thus those visions of the human future did not see the light of day, nor even a glimmer of dawn.
Point being our political system, and the wealth that owns it, chose this path, for their narrow self interests. All the while
waving flags and spouting endless tripe about their love of the American people..ETC.
Self interest=narrow end
5
Thomas Friedman makes a great point about how innovation occurs when you have openness. I don't know if this is the case in the USA but in Canada the university graduating classes in fields like Medicine, engineering and the natural sciences (physics, chemistry and biology) are predominantly first or second generation immigrants. Multi-generation Canadians, for reasons that are complex and not completely understood by me, gravitate towards the arts, banking related and legal fields. While the latter all have value they generally don't result in technological innovations of the sort that have changed our world and from which we in the West have benefited greatly. American has more nobel prize winners than any other country but look closely at the ethnicity of the winners in the sciences, over the last couple of decades, they are more likely than not to be immigrants who were attracted to America because it was a beacon to smart people from all over the world. So making it harder for these people to come to America will have long term negative consequences.
6
Mr. Friedman writes:" while surely some Chinese students are engaged in espionage, a vast majority are not". Is this meant to be encouraging? There are as many as 360,000 Chinese students in the USA.
4
@Martin Daly closer to 450,000 according to some estimates, and while some maybe spies or sorts, at their ages and status even a small number would have a hard time gaining access to anything seriously classified. There is an awareness of some pilfered research at post-grad but the problem in known and carefully observed. And with one year visas the US is essentially closing the door and watching the research offers go to Europe and the UK. Which, by the way, might make the 21st Century the Eurasian Century.
1
@Martin Daly
Chinese student are not spies. Please do not spread fake news.
"We need to pause and ask ourselves exactly where we are heading with this whole tech/trade war with China. And Beijing needs to do the same."
.
Puhlease, like Xi Jinping reads Friedman for advice.
.
People like Paulson, Bloomberg, Schwartzman, and, most of all, Bill Clinton, are totally culpable for making our implacable enemies in Beijing as strong and as rich as they are today.
.
Forget the Neville Chamberlain nonsense about how to work together. It's time for the entire free world to isolate that regime and not let up until it's gone. And there will be no escaping the pain that's going to be felt by us all as a result of the mess our "leaders" got us into.
.
But the pain of not fixing the problem now will be many many times worse. So wake up. It's the 1930s again, but Berlin has changed its name to Beijing. Appeasement will only make things worse. We all know that.
16
China's GDP still trails that of America significantly and they have four times the population that we have, so their per capita income, compared with ours, is miniscule. China stealing proprietary American technology is indeed a problem and needs to be dealt with, as does the Chinese potentially deploying technology that could compromise our national security.
But Trump remains a far greater threat to American national security than Xi Jinping does. The Chinese, for decades, have exercised remarkable military restraint. And the Chinese have also demonstrated restraint in dealing with the Hong Kong protests and allowed the recent local elections to proceed unimpeded. How does anyone believe Donald Trump would deal with massive unrest and protests, like those in Hong Kong, if they were here in the United States? And we all know how Trump enlists all of the nefarious support he can, including that of hostile foreign powers, to skew elections in his favor.
Let's go back to focusing on how we can rid ourselves as soon as possible of the greatest threat to American national security in our entire history - President Donald Trump.
17
@Rich D
*****China's GDP still trails that of America significantly*****
Not in PPP terms, which is arguably a better measurement. Using this metric, China's GDP is perhaps 20% larger than that of the US.
Sure, PPP is not not always the best metric, but neither is GDP at exchange rate terms.
You're right, though, that on a per capita basis, the US is a lot richer than the PRC.
When Mr Friedman looks East, he should also be holding a mirror to look West (Russians). It's a big world out there are there are more than two vectors disturbing a peaceful world.
The president does have a strategy even if it predicated upon smoke and mirrors. He opens strategic military and political doors for the Russians. Parallel, he exercises a trade war on the Chinese.
Note that China is isn't in a combat situation anywhere but the US and Russia are. The president said he wanted to brings troops home but he forgot about the oil-fields and strategic alliances with the Kurds.
Note that China did not subvert the 2016 presidential election. The president now says that the Ukraine did and while saying this he attempted to deny the Ukraine military aid against the Russians.
Note that the president has a paucity of business history with China, but a magnitude of business history with the Russians.
I would argue that the United States is throwing away a relatively stable and necessary relationship with China in favor of an unstable relationship with Russia (and I have not factored Europe into this equation).
8
Agreed on all the author's points other than that "some Chinese students are engaged in espionage, a vast majority are not". This has underestimated the severity of their infiltration.
4
The real debate should have been about human values, political values. It should have been engaged in the 1980's.
The western democracies had the chance at the time to create a system that might have leveraged western democratic values via the vortex of trade to create a world order that advanced humanity rather than degraded it.
Led by ''markets' and the politicians that served them, the neo liberal catastrophe, Reagan, Thatcher, et all, we made the fatal mistake. This mistake though it made many very rich and allowed for a menial prosperity for many who had not had even that, has also led us into the end game where we find ourselves today.
It will be very difficult to back the car up and get to basic principles. Given that we have a leader like we do, a man obsessed with the next news cycle, and what is in it for him, and his next election, given that fact it will be very hard to discuss anything of substance.
Should we would insist on these matters? maybe they are antique artifacts of the past.
The pillaging of our foreign policy, and our human character, for the benefit of markets, this is what we have done.
At this point can we talk about human/ political values?
It will be like learning to walk again, speak again, think again.
4
Trump and Republicans generally are well beyond America first or alone, their policies put America last. Example: As reported on CBS, Rare Earths. There are vast reservoirs of rare earth minerals off shore, ocean bottom, between Hawaii and Mexico, and the rights to this vast reserve are under control of the UN.
Russia, China, most other countries are obtaining the rights to large sections of these under water rare earth deposits, that are on the ocean's bottom's surface. But the US is not allowing itself to get a share of this, why? Because the Republican controlled Senate hates the UN, their boogie man, so we are left out of access, and it will soon be too late, as all tracts will be taken.
China already controls the majority of rare earth materials, needed for all out high tech products. And Trump the go it alone man, who hates the UN, is in lock step with his party of self defeat, of America last. USA the greatest country on Earth, not for long, not with the Republicans and the most corrupt POTUS in our countries history in charge.
3
The one group the author overlooks are low skilled American workers who jobs moved offshore (and often to China) during the past forty years. Many of these people lack the resources to retrain themselves and in many communities, such resources are not available.
Perhaps if the leading molders of public opinion in both politics and journalism had not ignored the damage brought to this constituency by the late twentieth-century burst of globalization, Donald Trump would not be in office.
14
Along with moving jobs overseas, they eliminated unions, they dropped job training for stealing employees from other companies, they pay low wages to force turnover, the cut benefits, they increased hours and cut staff, they bring in foreigners instead of hiring within, they love to compete for “top talent” but won’t nurture their own employees, they increased salaries, stock options, profit sharing, stock buybacks for management , but left labor as expendable. By sending trillions of manufacturing dollars overseas we have lost a half a century of job skills and equipment, now we can’t even make screws for iPhones. Thanks America for killing America.
Contrary to statements from Trump administration, the "brazen" response of Chinese leadership to the US-initiated trade war is not irrational. Essentially, as China accelerated its move to replace the US as the largest world economy, its leadership saw the economic confrontation with the US to be inevitable. As such, they have been getting ready for that for the last two decades. The Chinese leadership is making a stand at this time, as they figure the current political and economic conditions to be largely favorable to them.
First, they view the US leadership, that is Mr. Trump and his economic advisers, not only lightweight but generally incompetent. Secondly, they see the US public politically divided; hence unwilling to accept imposition of extreme economic measures due to the trade war. Thirdly, they feel the US has become politically isolated by pursuing “America First” approach in its relationship with its allies. And finally, they see Mr. Trump as someone who could "give away the store", as he desperately seeks trade agreements to increase his re-election chances.
Conversely, the Chinese believe they have now mustered enough economic strength to stand up to the US pressures. Domestically, China now has a middle class that is larger than the entire US population; a middle class known to be big on saving. Internationally, China has developed strong ties with Russia, many African countries, and countries that have joined China in its Belt and Road initiative.
8
As someone who has studied in China, I believe we overestimate their resolve and their ability to engage in a protracted trade war. To avoid civil unrest and maintain power, Beijing must show slight incremental improvement in living standards each year for its residents.
I believe the Chinese are fearful of isolating themselves from the US because they desperately want to maintain control and avoid unrest. Their hesitation in making a deal was rooted in seeing whether Trump would be re-elected and/or whether his opponents would take as hard a view. Now that they see there’s no advantage to waiting, we are seeing headlines for the stepwise approach.
I believe China is a paper tiger and we are absolutely correct to squeeze them in this negotiation.
5
@Jason
"Beijing must show slight incremental improvement in living standards each year for its residents" -- during normal times. In times of trade wars, however, any economic difficulties can be blamed on the US. An external enemy always unifies people behind their government.
4
In both the short term and long term, what really matters is that the U.S. and China work together to combat climate change--Zero Emissions. This implies shared concerns and trust. A first step might be to rid N. Korea of all nuclear weapons, the weapons there neither being in the interest of the U.S. or China, and a remnant of a failed policy to halt nuclear weapons proliferation. This has been the threat to the entire world since the '50s. Taking care of this first would be a fitting prelude to attacking the new threat, global warming, which with great effort is easily in the capability of the great powers to solve. The basis for doing this would be through cooperation rather than confrontation, though it might take the confrontation of the peoples of both countries against their own governments to get this going
There is an urgent concern among scientists to do this now.
3
Unfortunately American decline started 40-50 years ago. It may seem slow over that span of decades, but on the contrary it is a fast one. Post war World II we relied on military and predatory wall street to control the world and enrich ourselves and pushed for the dollars supremacy ( and started printing dollars as if there was no tomorrow). Had we been wise we could have used this power and dominance to further our interest as well as the others. But we didn't, squandering one opportunity after another. We even royally squandered the "peace dividend" after the Fall of the Soviets. The Military industrial neocon security complex destroyed our wealth and our goodwill around the world. creating and inventing enemies. Our embassies are fortresses filled with military and CIA parasitic personnel directing troops and drones, instead of peace corps and peaceful exchanges, when in the past embassies and our youth were a symbol of democracy and american exuberance.
36
@TS
Very valid points. One thing which always astounded me was the decision of George H.W. Bush to maintain defence spending levels as they were even after the USSR collapsed. When announced his decision at a press meeting, a journalist famously asked who the enemy now was.
Already, Reagan had hiked defence spending significantly as President. Despite promising decreased government spending supposedly, he actually hiked the defence spending component, which led to an increase in overall government spending (even as other programs were scaled back).
Since 2001, US$ 4.9 trillion has also been spent on foreign wars according to a recent NYT op-ed. It makes me wonder what outcomes could have been attained if it at least part of this vast sum had been invested domestically.
In the 1950s and 60s, the percentage of government spending allotted to R&D was higher. Considering China has recently beat the US to unveil the first 5G network (capable of decrypting quantum-encrypted messages by US intelligence), it might not be a bad idea to raise the amount allocated to R&D with a clear eye on the fulfilment of strategic objectives. I find that most of the innovations in the US today are commercially-driven ones spearheaded by the private sector. I think the government should at least use the budget in a way which furthers scientific innovation, the way Xi Jinping is currently doing with his "Made in 2025" to move China up the technology ladder.
16
@TS
The irony is that the neocons thought they could use the US military to grab control over much of the world's resources. Instead we infuriated the rest of the world and bankrupted the US. W's adventures in the Middle East marked the peak of our stupidity. Where's the paradigm of democracy (and stalwart US ally) that Iraq was supposed to become?
There's a reason for the Patriot Act and all else. Those that put his disaster in motion will fight to hold onto power and do all they can to do so. They're afraid of what will happen when their house of cards collapses and the American people realize what's become of their nation.
5
@TS
Thank you, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barak Obama.
1
If the EU and the US acted together, to counteract China’s abusive export protocols and technology thievery, by passing a moratorium on Chinese imports, China would collapse in a nanosecond.
The statement that a “ small numbers of researchers of Chinese background may indeed have acted in bad faith, but they are the exception and very far from the rule. “ is as absurd as claiming that the world is flat. Neither is true. While India and China may make some tech inroads, their socioeconomic/ historical systems are not set up to stimulate creativity and free thinking. Can you say Hong Kong\Xianjiang \Taiwan or Kashmir? Or, Hindu/ Muslim conflict? Russia, with much better universities hasn’t been capable of launching innovation. China has, courtesy of US technology. Does anyone pay stock on thousands of Chinese research papers published annually? No. No one does.
11
The Chinese have a guidebook since the ancient times, it's titled The Art of War. It's been teaching them how to survive throughout all their history of being colonized, stamped upon. It's a book well-known for its war strategy, so much so, it's being used in businesses all over the world.
America, on the other hand, has a guidebook from recent times, authored by our sitting president, The Art of the Deal. Think about it. Do we really think we can win? What were we thinking?
13
@North
Stop trying to pin this all on Trump.
The American rot began in earnest 38 years ago with Ronald Reagan whose short sighted, simple minded, ideologically hidebound thinking has become gospel in American political culture.
The basic question is can we compete in the long run with China? The answer is a qualified yes, provided we 1. Reestablish respectful and cooperative relationships with our allies and with our adversaries whenever possible. 2. Renew our prior dedicated federal support of STEM education and R&D. 3. Reclaim our position of being the preferred destination for education and research by the world's best talent. Trump's policies have failed miserably on all three issues.
Our economic success from the end of WWII up to the 2nd millennium is largely based on the scientific discoveries and technical breakthroughs achieved through the1980's, much of that due to foreign talents coming and working in the US. After the early 1980's our federal support for R&D began to decline from 6% of the federal budget to less than 2% in 2018. In terms of the GDP, it fell by a factor of 2 during that period. I contrast, our main competitors increased their R&D and education in the STEM fields, particularly China. In order to compete we have to likewise commit to increase our funding in the STEM and medical fields. Although China trains and by now has a larger technical workforce, we still will be able to compete and outdo them in transformational innovation, simply because we still have the best educational and research institutions, plus an ace card in our hand: freedom. Lack of it promotes unimaginative and conformist group-think that forces China to engage in IP theft to advance its technologies.
18
@Rudy Ludeke
Agreed, but it is not going to happen. We prefer to built F-35s and decrease taxes on the top 5-10 percent and engage in foreign wars
6
Friedman's analysis is predicated on dubious, likely false, assumptions. He writes, "Because the peace, prosperity and accelerations in technology and globalization that have so benefited the world over the past 40 years...." I will leave it to others to do the numbers, but it seems to me that the many "little" wars (e.g. Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc.) belie the claim that the past 40 years have been peaceful.
More questionable is the tacit assumption that "accelerations in technology" during that period are an unmitigated good that have "benefited the world." Yes, the technological developments have served to "disrupt" the status quo ante, but Friedman seems to have bought into Silicon Valley's self-aggrandizing mantra that "disruption equals progress" (a notion which, among other things, made Trump's 2016 candidacy seem acceptable to many people.)
From my perspective what has primarily been accomplished is the democratized ability to perpetuate lies as truth, the dependence of advanced societies on extraordinarily vulnerable infrastructure, and the commoditization of privacy.
While Friedman writes with angst about nation states, he ignores the fact that what the technology has done is allow non-state actors, whether groups or individuals, to wreck havoc and engage in consequent blackmail in a way the world has never seen. After all, who needs suicide bombers once there are drones and self-driving cars? And 3-D printers producing arms will make gun laws useless.
25
@Steve Fankuchen The important point here is the statement "the dependence of advanced societies on extraordinarily vulnerable infrastructure". Scratch the surface of this issue and it becomes dark very quickly. Few understand the vulnerabilities and there is no political interest in the subject. Yet it's the greatest threat to humanity at the present. Much more imminent than climate change.
3
@Steve Fankuchen
You have no idea of how it pains me to defend Mr Friedman. We live in a world of big numbers and we have the technology that gives meaning to those big numbers.
We are the most healthy, prosperous, most secure, most productive, wisest generation of homo sapiens that ever lived, we have the technology to combat global climate change we are near maximum population and population decrease.
Combine that with an unprecedented period of almost universal peace and here we are with a loony in the Oval Office.
Things have never been better that is why the USA, China and Russia frighten me. Their wealth and power stem from ignorance and no understanding that these are the best of times and we are capable of better.
1
Mr. Friedman has failed to explain how this marvelous 40 year symbiosis has benefited most Americans. The only true beneficiaries have been the Chinese people, pulled out of poverty, the CCP and its corrupt leadership, and US CEO's, who park their profits everywhere but here; everybody else has been left in the dust, wearing a cheap tee shirt. I know Friedman gets all his talking point from the corner office gurus, deigning to speak to any of the riffraff, but he has not presented a compelling argument about why this system must be maintained to those of us who could just as easily live without China.
27
@stan continople American consumers have also benefited, because consumer goods are cheaper for being made in China.
4
@Frequent Flyer
It benefits no one to have a shoddy piece of toxic plastic made by de facto slave labor replace a piece of metal and wood made by American craftsmanship.
2
As referenced in the last sentence, Let It Burn, To The Ground.
3
All MIT is worried about is losing valuable tuition from wealthy Chinese families. It seems like half the college student population of Boston is Asian.
11
Maybe the US should engage in 40 years of theft of Chinese technology.
6
This is a really good article.
Notice that Trump couldn't wait to pull out of the TPP, which would have presented a united front made up of many of the major economies to China.
"Stupid" doesn't begin to describe it.
43
@spindizzy
Yes the TPP was presented as this is a great idea.. vote for it.. We'll let you know what it says eventually. There were plenty of reason people did not want another NAFTA. The public at large does not like that everything comes from China and India. A friend reported that 90% of generic drugs are from India.. (not sure about that statistic but it's a lot for sure.) I agree with Trump that we should make things here... and frankly, clothing is really low level manufacturing... Why does Apple find it nec. to make their goods using Chinese slaves... I thought slavery and pollution were things of the past -- and in a way they are in the USA>
2
Whenever I read that “China must do X” my reaction is: China doesn’t NEED to do anything we want them to. So what is our response if they decide to maintain a hard line? Because in any relationship, if one side always demands and the other side always gives in for the sake of peace, it’s not going to end well for the Econ’s person.
3
Looking at the comments, here we go again. The usual tropes being repeated mindlessly like lemmings: Democracy is essential for innovations. Open societies will always win, etc etc
Soviet mathematics and space tech, Nazi rocketry, ancient Chinese inventions (paper, gunpowder, compass, silk, mass production techniques, etc etc). Industrial revolution in England. Are they all achieved under democracy and open societies?
To paraphrase an Indian diplomat: the West has open societies but closed minds ("ours is the best, you must do what we tell you to do, blah, blah") but China may be a closed society, it has an open mind, ready to learn for the best outcomes.
How about another quote (forgot originator, sorry) - you change the world by your example, not your opinion.
19
@Andrew Ton, Thomas Friedman has a point about the dangers of two diverging economies. The two largest economies in the world decoupling! There are likely to be huge unintended and unforeseen consequences. What comes to mind is the period of the thirties. During that time the Great Economic Depression led to long-term global hardship. Two significant countries that basically felt shut out of the world economy reacted by declaring war on everyone else and the greatest and most destructive war in history ensued. We are probably seeing the beginnings of a global cyber-war which could escalate at any time. The Russians and the North Koreans have shown how massive financial and logistical damage can be done with minimal offensive outlays. The biggest bang for the buck lies in the internet.
2
The US, protected by two oceans and in possession of huge, uncontested territory and natural resources, has a big head start and other countries play catchup.
The world is going to be polarized anyway, even between allies like the 5-Eyes and the EU. Trump is just hastening the process and making it irreversible and the PRC is a natural target for him. The odd thing is how Trump submit the US to Putin's power play, like it's a personal thing and nobody's business.
About state subsidies, if the EU hadn't subsidized and supported Airbus, Boeing would have a monopoly on passenger aircraft. Another example is the PRC-subsidy for renewable energy, there wasn't the infrastructure and technology but now, the PRC is a major player, albeit still far short of "grid parity" where per-kilowatt-hour-by-coal costs the same as per-kilowatt-hour-by-renewables. Far as I'm aware, only some members of EU is achieving that, notably Germany. The US lags.
I cannot conceive of a situation where the Chinese would submissively come back to the US for soybeans and at a guess, Boeing won't be making a lot of sales soon as CAC919 gets certified. At a guess, the PRC will have a world class chip-foundry by 2025. Before Trump, over 60% of American microchips are exported to the PRC, so Americans will need to find new customers. I agree with the assessment that America and China won't trust each other again. It's a divisive course of action.
Trump is like a bull in a China shop, punt meant :D
3
.....by the way, the nation/state is obsolete. In a time fraught with environmental degradation and unfolding disaster, the last thing the people of the planet need, and the last thing that the planet that supports the lives of the people needs, is a new widget trying to figure out how to squeeze more dollars from our natural resources.
We kid ourselves, at our own expense, that our economies, that our politics, are what rule the world - when what the world is, is biological.
We can fret about all sorts of things; until we realize, and act, upon the fact that we are biological being first. All of this nonsense about trade, about ideas, about freedom, will otherwise be moot.
In any analysis of the current situation we are in, the first response shows protecting and preserving the health of our planet is the greatest priority for our own basic self interest.
Because, our lives depend on it.
After we take care of the planet we live on, we can choose to talk about economic strategy and what politic serves the citizens of this planet best globally, regardless of zip code, latitude, or longitude.
5
Do we now accept China's building of artificial islands and their claims of sovereignty over international waters.
2
@Cassandra
Of course not. Why do you ask?
Of course, the fact that we don't "accept" China's acts in these areas doesn't mean they're worth risking war over. For decades America didn't recognize the USSR's annexation of the Baltic states (do cite one relevant example) but we nonetheless managed to avoid blowing up the world over it.
@Jasper With due apologies to the Baltic (betrayed and long suffering though they were, point taken), the South China Sea plays an entirely different role in the flow of global trade, from what I've read. Something like a third of all trade in $ terms, I seem to recall?
Americans are too divided socially, racially and economically to agree upon a proper heading. And the removal of Trump, though necessary, is only a step in the right direction.
5
“The messy, ad hoc decoupling of these two economies, driven by miscalculations by leaders on both sides, will surely disrupt those trends and the costs could be huge.”
- Thomas L. Friedman
“Miscalculation”? Are you sure about that, Tom.
It would seem the decoupling would be applauded by Vladimir Putin. And if you think Trump is not doing Putin’s bidding then you have not been paying attention.
3
This is a well-reasoned piece, but it ignores the most important points.
The biggest news of 2018 was not the Democrats retaking the House of Representatives. It was the complete collapse of government by the Chinese Communist Party and its replacement by an emperor.
Let's dispense with Political Correctness:
Donald Trump is a racist megalomaniac.
Xi Jinping is worse.
Donald Trump mistreats migrants horribly, but less so than Xi Jinping treats his own Tibetan and Uighur Chinese citizens.
The United States is correct in pushing back hard, very hard, against a Chinese empire apparently bent on world hegemony. The United States has the option, to be exercised next November, of choosing a different government. China does not. Until it develops such an option, our implacable opposition seems to be the only sensible policy. Sad but true.
Dan Kravitz
14
I disagree that China is not our enemy. They are our enemy and should be treated as such. America has been too soft on China. If we do not deal with them now, not just everything around us but we(USA) will be burning.
7
Thomas,
Why are you worried?
We have a president with an IQ of 115 and an omni-potent presidential son-in-law meaning to oversee all special teams issues.
Trust the judgement of the red-state voters. They know best after all!
It’s not for nothing Wyoming has the same number of Senators as California.
Still not convinced? Tune into Fox News more often.
3
Any discussion on US-China relations must begin with an acknowledgement of the fundamental social and ideological disparities which separate the two nations.
China's numerous troubling stances on human rights, foreign policy, press freedom and countless other issues are inherently incompatible with the values of the United States.
Until these differences can be reconciled, there will remain an underlying tension which impedes any real progress in the two nations' relationship.
This is an issue which goes far beyond trade.
9
“I wonder if one day future historians will look back at this contest between Americans and Chinese and compare them to two families of apes fighting with each other while the forest around them is burning.”
Finally. Someone has figured it out. What a relief!
Friedman has provided a cogent overview of the collapse of the largely one-sided US/Chinese economic romance. American corporatism attempted to make a virtue, indeed an entire social philosophy, out of the pursuit of short-term gratification, at home and abroad. Take the profits now, as quickly as you can, worry about the consequences tomorrow. And, guess what, tomorrow has arrived.
The fact that the split-up has been ugly and awkward does not necessarily imply that it was a mistake. It is a time to step back and reassess the implications of this hasty embrace. If it took a chest-beating alpha-chimp like Donald Trump to make it happen, so be it.
The same technological impulse that magnified the power of both private and public institutions to a horrific potential seems to have also overridden traditional moral control mechanisms. The balance must be restored, lest we destroy ourselves. The notion that such huge power should be regulated by nothing more benign or predictable than the unfettered profit motive is a recipe for disaster.
The Enlightened Luddite position calls for pulling the plug on the dynamo until we learn how to control it. And the US can't tackle this challenge until sanity is restored in DC.
7
Indeed, all the NY Times talks about is Trump (at least in the editorial section). But at least in this article, some very subtle praise is actually bestowed upon Trump. Trump should be praised for ripping the bandage off with China. Trying something more measured across different US gov't agencies, as the author suggests, would have been much slower, and probably would have failed outright.
3
There is no easy answer, if there is one at all, when neither side can trust the other. How can a democracy trust a centrally controlled government. It is not possible, especially in an era when that democracy is not exactly stable and led by untrustworthy top dogs?
1
Tom, just as an experiment, go teach an introductory level English class at a community college in California that has 50% overseas Chinese students hoping to stay in America by transferring to a four year school, only give in-class essay examinations so there is no chance of cheating, and then let us know at the end of the semester whether you think the Chinese students on campus arrive well prepared for their American educations, are contributing to intercultural understanding on campus, and are using their American experiences to find a new appreciation for democracy and freedom in Hong Kong.
14
@Snowball
I lived in the Bay Area for decades. I worked alongside Chinese guest workers and foreign students. I found little curiosity about America or its culture and values. Perhaps because of Chinese vetting of who is given an exit visa, I mostly saw a singleminded interest in harvesting assets from our system, like technical knowledge, to take home.
Hardly something about which we should complain, given our history of imperialism, but not a warm and fuzzy experience and certainly not one that seems to deliver any lasting social benefit.
Makes Friedman sound good at cocktail parties, though.
1
You and others bespeak as if we the news consumers are driving the Trump media train--- we are actually just being run over by it.
But by 'we' perhaps you should write 'aII I talk about...'.
Same concerning 'we are becoming desensitized' and this 'is the new normal' and many other inane phrases that more aptly describe the news outlets --- not us.
I personally am ill in knowing that I must hear about this man on an hourly basis and that my vote (still a year away) is my only recourse. More and more it's looking like 5 more years of pain. OK?
5
Sending Muslims in Western China to “re-education” camps eventually will create another PR problem in that it may further ignite the activity of terrorist agents. This with the Taiwan and Hong Kong problems as well as the economic downturn and man-made islands creating regional fear and division over ownership of territorial waters can only magnify it's ineffectual leadership. how poorly a dictatorship controls stability. In the long haul There will be a reckoning internally and externally and it won't be pretty for all involved.
4
Considering China's stealing our jobs, technologies and security, and its Orwellian surveillance and total control of its own citizens lives, I say "bravo" for any wall.
We did better without China before, and we'll do better without it now.
PS I am NOT a trump supporter.
10
Thomas Friedman, I really appreciate your columns. Refreshingly balanced and intelligent. I would like to query one thing you said here, however.
"...tightening Communist Party rule over Hong Kong". Could you give me some examples of this, please?
As far as I am aware, the mainland has very much a hands-off approach to Hong Kong. The bookseller abduction was a disgraceful exception but, on the whole, the mainland has not overly interfered. In fact it offered a major concession in 2014 in the form of universal suffrage (with a huge catch of course) which could have paved the way for greater democracy here.
5
Lenin supposedly said that the capitalists would sell the communists the rope used to hang them (he never actually said this, but that's not the point); we've been selling China (or giving or letting them steal lots of ropes for years now. It is time to stop. I hate Trump with a passion, but starting to take on China is about the only thing I agree with him about (though surely we need a different leader to do this going forward).
6
Integrating China into the western economic order was a huge mistake. American manufacturing got devastated causing the political unrest that we see today. It gave the CCP legitimacy and a competing model for developing countries to follow, authoritarianism coupled with crony capitalism. The capital to spread corruption with debt trap laden projects in Africa, Latin America and parts of South East Asia.
China is also trying to subjugate Hong Kong, running Muslim concentration camps, the organ harvesting of their own citizens; how as citizens of a free nation can we continue to tolerate such egregious human rights abuses. It will only spread if we say and do nothing.
7
Hate to be the downer here, but it’s very nearly too Late. Russia is not the real beneficiary of the Trump fiasco, it’s China,
VOTE like you mean it-2020. VOTE them ALL out.
3
"two families of apes fighting with each other while the forest around them is burning.” That's EXACTLY what's happening here. The Earth IS burning, and on this side of the Pacific, the person in the WH doesn't believe in fire. Humanity is a renter on this planet, NOT the owner. and our temporary status gets shorter every day we don't take action, to halt our fossil fuel-burning destruction of the environment. And we ARE apes, make no mistake. Apes with nukes, and, apparently, dwindling intelligence. Our short time using fossil fuels should have been used to bridge to new energy technology/technologies. If we waste this time, we have no future. None.
4
total only one word ，we need kille beijng,China.
The entire article is full of Western-style arrogance. First, Hong Kong belongs to China. No country has the right to blame the internal affairs of other countries. After all, no one has accused the White House of doing things on Wall Street in California or Las Vegas.
And you know.
China is not Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, China has a complete industrial system, agricultural system and talent reserves, vast land, and people have the most basic patriotic education.
More than 5,000 years of historical heritage is unparalleled in any country. There is a whole set of unique production and living systems here.
In addition, modern China has experienced failure and humiliation. Older people still remember death fear, oppression, humiliation and terror controlled by others. Now they are respected people in the family. They communicate with adults and children and educate children about which country and house.
Give up your Western thinking. This is not the Berlin Wall. The difference between the two countries is the Mariana Trench. You will not understand "father, father, son, monarch and minister". Chinese thought. You cannot understand the contradictions they think.
1
U.S. concern for Hong Kong' democracy is entirely reasonable. China's having broken its treaty obligations to "One Country, Two Systems" leaves the Western World to worry about what other international obligations China will ignore.
2
@j Actually, it's not that simple. The "humiliation" that the Chinese "remember" certainly had to do with invasion by foreign powers. But fostering a sense of "humiliation" is also a nationalistic ploy used by the Chinese government to unite people and distract them from the problems of their own country. If you're interested, you could read Timothy Brook's "Collaboration," which gives a different take on the massacre of Nanjing. And moreover, scholars of the Qing Dynasty argue that it was actually the success of the later emperors' policies which caused the population to grow exponentially, that made China vulnerable to civil war and invasion. Plus, if you want to talk about the Opium War, for a non main-narrative view, read Arthur Waley's "The Opium War Through Chinese Eyes," which examines the role that Chinese military leaders played in bringing about their own demise. There are lots of ways of complicating this narrative so that the so-called "humiliation" is at least partially brought on by the Chinese and/or the Chinese government. This is of course not to exonerate the invasions and brutalities at all. One other important point, I daresay, is that the very old people you talk about who "experienced fear and humiliation" actually remember famines caused by the policies of China's government of the time, and political persecution.
3
@Ima Palled
No it has not. China perfectly abides by 1C2S, despite propaganda from the US. In fact, China has refrained from exercising powers that it legally possesses.
All of this conflict when people, money and trade move across borders with relative ease. Maybe the problem is not America or China but the entire concept of individual nations. We live in a global world, in the information age but act like we still exist in the industrial revolution. I'm not saying we should completely give up the idea of national sovereignty or culture but clearly going back to acting like it each nation exists as an island unto itself is dying. Perhaps this is part of why everyone is so angry all the time. Our leaders seek to fix modern problem with old solutions not fit for the age they're being proposed in.
2
The U.S. has vast room for improvement, but we did not ban the color orange when Trump got elected.
Mr. Friedman says, "I still believe that the most open systems win." I agree, which is why a country that bans Winnie the Pooh has a poor chance of achieving its full potential. Xi's desire for complete control will stifle China's potential for years to come.
3
@Zep
China did not ban Winnie the Pooh--you can verify this yourself on baidu.com. The US media made up this fake news propaganda.
@Jason
Unfortunately, accessing baidu.com from within the U.S. doesn't prove anything. The content you see on a website can vary based on your location (IP address). What I see on baidu.com is different from what someone in China might see.
I once worked for someone who was ethnic Chinese.
Her perspective on China was different than most. China viewed the past few hundred years as an aberration. The Western 'barbarians' had forced their will on China but the time was coming when China would retake its position leading the world.
The Communists had ended the corruption in China but made huge mistakes. The Great Leap Forward was an abysmal failure. So China changed without ever admitting any error. China managed to industrialize and put a displaced and surplus rural population to work in one brilliant move.
Instead of borrowing to build industry, China offered western corporations a cheap work force. Corporations moved factories to China and trained its workforce. The west gave China technology that would have taken years to develop on its own.
China's GDP grew with the output from these factories - output which was once part of the US GDP. The dollars China made were used to buy tangible assets like mining companies in South America and farmland in Africa. They invested in long term energy contracts with former Soviet Republics. They used foreign aid to gain power throughout Africa.
We hastened the ascendancy of China by 50 years and sped our own decline.
China never planned on 'partnering' with the US. This was a competition, one which they won. What nation in the history of the world has ever turned over its productive capacity to another?
15
Obama's Pivot to Asia plan, along with the TPP, would have been an effective way to corner China. By forming strong alliances with other Asian nations, and building trade and security pacts with them, China could be trapped in its own backyard. We missed that boat, and China has surged out into the World, forming business alliances in Africa, Pakistan, and Latin America. China is thrilled Trump is taking America offf the World Stage, because it opens a path for China to become the leader other nations turn to.
129
@Mary
Until we can come to some conclusion on abortion, guns, the role of women, LGBT and immigration, nothing here will get done. The Right is absolutely transfixed on these issue over all. As a result of their passion to dominate these issues, we will always be susceptible to electing totally incompetent and corrupt leaders like Trump and the Republican Party.
We are not capable of entering any alliance unless it’s with Putin or MBS.
3
Each country seeks to protect and foster its own interests.
Each country has a different perception and understanding of its own interests.
Amazingly, Mr. Friedman, the Chinese interpret their own interests differently than you do, and they would seem to be better placed to do so. Amazingly also, they pursue policies that are not in the interests of the US. Just how crazy is that?
And just as amazingly, your perceptions and interpretations may not be the only ones re US interests.
13
China, with the help of U.S-based multinationals and from the G.H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations, has already won the technology war. Obama tried to isolate China with his pivot to Asia and the TPP, but that was too late and was rejected by Trump in any case. Trump is fighting a war from the 1980s and 90s that has already been lost.
396
@tanstaafl
Obama did have the foresight to know where we had to go, but the Middle East kept pulling him back as he tried to disentangle from that lost region. In 50-100 years the people in the Middle East will be back to being tribal and poor. When the oil runs out they will go back to the 16th Century. China will still be here.
24
@tanstaafl
Tom Friedman "I still believe that the most open systems win."
More likely, the most thriving country "wins".
And, thriving is more important than winning.
The US has been a very open system and it has not worked for the majority of citizens.
The US has invested in Friedman's version of "winning', while not investing in its citizens, its infrastructure, or its future as in preventing climate change.
Perhaps a country less obsessed with "winning", but on having a thriving society would evolve a different relationship with "openess", one that would ebb and flow depending on many factors.
So many see life in win/lose, open/closed, militarily involved/isolationist... in reality, there is room for many ways, styles, variations...
Perhaps, the olive tree is way more important than the lexus.
32
@tanstaafl This does not mean the trend will forever continue, or that all is lost. The United States has several tremendous advantages, including more flexible political systems, energy and food independence, a growing population (thanks mostly to immigration), and a geographically secure position. The Chinese are going to have to confront their dependency on foreign inputs and the consequences of the one-child policy (while broadly a success, it has had some unintended consequences). I remember when Japan was going to rule the world. Ultimately, it didn't happen. While it may be apples-to-oranges, all is not lost.
10
China did not behave like most kleptocratic developing nations like those in Latin America and Africa. China’s leaders had a LONGTERM plan and they implemented it. They exploited American business short term thinking and the ruthlessness of the American consumer to find low prices.
China had no interest in being a lackey to the USA. They aspired to be a peer to the USA.
As for The USA, roughly more than half the country wants some form of isolationism where American builds its own stuff. They don’t understand the global economy. Additionally, too many Americans have little interest I how the world works.
I think China has a better chance of winning the future.
First, they think long term. Americans think election cycle to cycle.
Second, China can endure more economic pain than we can.
Third America is happily ripping itself apart over social war issues
Fourth China has a greater commitment to education and technological advancement. The USA has absolutely no commitment to educating anyone other than those who can afford private school tuition.
We are in trouble.
303
@Practical Thoughts You are so right. The U.S. is in trouble (as is Canada). I'm in my 70s and spent a lot of my youth traveling the States. When I retired, my wife and I did the travel-North-America-again trip. The stuff we saw confirmed our worst fears.
25
@Practical Thoughts
China does not aspire to be a 'peer' to the US.
China plans on retaking its position as THE world power. They are well on their way. Anywhere in the world you have Chinese students in programs that matter to the future of the planet - engineering, the sciences. A friend of our son's jut finished his MS in Hydrology overseas in a prestigious British University (cheaper than here in the US). Fifteen of the twenty in the program were Chinese.
In contrast a good number of his HS classmates are working for 'Internet Advertising' and 'Social Media' companies. What exactly do they do? The 'connected' are working for Wall Street while many are actually teachers. Not so many in science or engineering. But that was true even 40 years ago. Most of those going on for MS degrees were foreign even then.
29
@Ken Wightman
I am in my 70s and my wife and I spent a lot of time living in the States. I fear your worst fears are justified. Fears for Canada are from the USA the numbers speak of our being a very different country.
Life expectancy for Russian males is 66 today's American statistics tell a tale.
9
Was just talking about this the other day. If China realizes that she is mature enough to decouple and does so, we may never recover.
Why? Was talking to a teacher at one of the super affluent Riverdale schools. Our kids are less and less prepared for STEM careers. Instead of teaching actual material we are focusing on “leadership” and the like. Our kids feel “unsafe” if they are corrected. Good luck doing science without a solid foundation of knowledge. Good luck if you can’t tolerate having your ideas challenged. So if they stop sending grad students altogether, we will have no one left to do the work of science.
11
@The F.A.D. "Good luck if you can’t tolerate having your ideas challenged. "
And you think this is a strength for the Chinese?
1
I need help on this one. Is it not true that China holds a great deal of our national debt due to our massive deficits? It would seem to me that if China suddenly dumped those debt instruments onto the world market it would create a very difficult scenario for our country. So, in this bitter battle between the world's two biggest economies why hasn't China done so? Doesn't it hold the trump card (no pun intended)? Again, help me on this.
1
Someone better informed than me can weigh in.
But this scenario, having been posited for at least the last decade, seems like mutually assured destruction. China is not growing as much as it used to. This scenario would hurt the US but could cause massive problems for China.
A possible global recession would cause opportunity for some and problems for many. I don’t think China would want the instability and possible recession this act would create.
Also, if you unload this much debt the price will move against you. And who is going to buy all that debt?
6
@Bob China buys Treasuries with the dollars we spent on the goods they sold us. Dollars are US IOUs; Treasuries are US IOUs that pay interest. Treasuries are assets... very like money. They are highly liquid and very high prices are paid for them. That's why they yield so little interest... because they are so prized. Think of them as dollars stored in your freezer. Why would anyone want to dump assets so valuable? US debt is as good as gold.
1
@Bob
Dumping the dollar will only hurt China as the price drop while Federal Reserve will only print the money to buy it. China is doing the prudently thing by gradually selling the dollar slowly and use it to buy natural resources in Africa or Australia.
Tom, the reason you want to stop talking about Trump at this particular moment is because the Democrat-led impeachment hearings were a complete bust. Don't worry, you will have plenty of opportunity to discuss the issues you consider important, because all your liberals peers are looking to change the subject too. They each have their own unique off ramp (defense mechanism), but make no mistake the media's obsession with impeachment is collapsing. And the Democrats are desperately searching for a way to save face. After the Thanksgiving break, we will see a lot of calls from Democrats to censure the president, rather than impeach him. You might even write a column supporting the idea, or we might see an Times editorial reluctantly suggesting that while morally insufficient, censure is the best imperfect option given Republican intransigence.
6
When neither side has the wherewithal to completely dominate over the other, the only thing one can do is keep applying pressure, but talk or appear to be willing to. In the mean time, whoever has a better system, and I don't mean representative vs. authoritarian, but efficient, well-run and able to withstand the test of time, will survive.
I would add you need to get government to compel the cooperation of US industry, too, as they are often the ones who engage with China for short term profits at the expense of long term losses like technology transfer.
6
Each country dominates their own market, which are roughly equivalent now on the consumer end. Yes: the share of each other's market will shrink.
The more significant issue is the contest on the global playing field by U.S. corporations and Chinese state-managed companies.
Washington Consensus Capitalism and State managed economy with Chinese characteristics are rugby and American football, seemingly similar but significantly different systems that cannot play well together on the same field.
African and Asian countries are increasingly choosing the Chinese economic model as partner/mentor/clients. This presents U.S. companies with a major threat to global profits. In response they are using the U.S. political patronage system to express their dismay through the mouthpiece of government officials.
Game on.
1
Mr. Friedman is correct about the decoupling that is occurring. He's also correct that process is probably hurting China more than U.S. at present, and from the comments I understand both parties and majority of U.S. support this policy. But the question remains whether it's in the long term interest of U.S. and the world. Without understanding China and believe the self propaganda and blaming China will only generate the delusion of evil empire.
I will state a few facts and leave readers to connect the dots. China's GDP is still growing at 6% even under the pressure while U.S. is at 2%. If we use PPP instead of currency conversion China passed U.S. by 2014. China will more than satisfy the Paris Climate Agreement on greenhouse gas reduction, while U.S. just withdrawal from it. In 5-10 years China will be totally green with all electric vehicles in highways, they are presently installing the info structure of charging stations all across the country. China believe the incoming climate apocalypses and is doing planning on it. Whether be reverse the desertification (China is becoming more green per UN data) or diverting water from the Himalaya toward north. And please don't blame China for the burning of Amazons for China's demand for soy beans.
I suggest instead of demonizing China you visit there to see yourself, to see the greening of China's interior. As for human rights I suggest the basic for food, shelter, and health trumps all.
2
@xeroid47 Ask the Uighurs about the "trumps all" part. Or the people of Hong Kong when Xi cracks down.
@xeroid47 You forgot to mention the million Muslims now in "reeducation camps" or the pollution so bad masks are worn. Did you mention the dystopian spy network that records every movement of their citizens.
While these may be inconvenient facts to your propaganda, facts are hard to hide.
I would like to propose that the U.S organize a boycott of the 2022 winter Olympics, which will be held in Beijing, as a protest against all the Chinese activities Thomas Friedman cites: the internment of Muslims, the extension of its security state in Hong Kong, its regional aggressiveness. The U.S. has tried many rewards and punishments over the years and none of it seems to have much effect on China's actions. It has long seemed to me that China cares more about its global image than just about anything else, and embarrassing it, ruining its party, might well have far more impact than tariffs or tech bans.
9
No talented individual would want to go to a country that does not want them, especially if their own country values them more than America does. That has begun to happen in India. The main reason why the US attracted so many talented Indians & Chines in the latter half of the 20th century was the bleak economic outlook for them at home, and the soft-power of American culture (largely gone now). The Indian students that go to America now are very different: they pay their way, rather than go on scholarships, because that's what US universities now value: hard cash v. brains. Trump's America and the Internet have made it vividly clear that the America of the pre-civil rights era continues to lurk menacingly beneath the surface. And America's appeal for global talent is just not what it used to be.
19
@Kumar Ranganathan
And, America's appeal for travel, shopping, business activities, etc. by we foreigners is not what it used to be .
MAGA, as practiced by Trump and his ilk, is Making America Alone.
I don’t think visa restrictions to Chinese students to protect our national interests is wrong.
However hard on the student, they are not American citizens.
Besides there are quite a few Americans who are denied admissions to US universities to admit foreigners who are mostly children of wealthy global elites. Let’s give all opportunity to Americans first.
41
Ditto for Canada. Check out what is going on at UBC. It is all about catering to the Chinese to.the point of admitting first year students basically ignorant of English
2
In other words, the US-China dynamic is the natural order of things. The US has/had the world’s dominant economy and military and it was only a matter of time before complacency arose, decision-making got bogged down, aging infrastructure became a drag, and a formidable competitor emerged. Friedman and others should not be surprised by this. This is how many mighty empires before us have fallen. A leading indicator of our current state of affairs was our self-satisfaction over the demise of the USSR. We naively thought our “system” was superior and most deserving. Humility has never been our strong suit.
27
Mr. Friedman, I greatly respect you and your opinions. They are a must read for me, as are your books.
I always worry about "the vast majority" of anything, when sometimes individual counts are more revealing. After all, 99.99996% of domestic flights in the US--a huge majority--were not hijacked in 2001. I don't know how many Chinese students are spies, and one good one can be a problem.
I worry about Chinese technology, Chinese repression, Chinese coal burning (like ours) and the Chinese military. Rather than tariffs, I would rather have seen the US push in other directions.
6
Thanks to Mr. Friedman for this thoughtful column. We do need a new US administration, staffed by professionals pursuing a coherent policy. There is no chance of getting that from any Republican administration, given that party's intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
The US and China (and Europe) need to work together to meet the challenges of climate change, nuclear proliferation, and terrorism. The people have many interests in common; we need leaders who perceive that.
6
Mr. Friedman, I enjoy reading your columns, and I largely agree with your views on this subject. However, it seems that Steve Job's reality distortion field should be added to the list of things copied or stolen from US companies, and your visit with Huawei CEO Ron Zhengfei has clearly left you dazzled.
I found your column from May this year to be especially cogent:
"In the old days, when we were just buying China’s tennis shoes and solar panels and it our soybeans and Boeings, who cared if the Chinese were Communists, Maoists, socialists — or cheats? But when Huawei is competing on the next generation of 5G telecom with Qualcomm, AT&T and Verizon — and 5G will become the new backbone of digital commerce, communication, health care, transportation and education — values matter, differences in values matters, a modicum of trust matters and the rule of law matters. This is especially true when 5G technologies and standards... become very hard to displace."
Yes, all countries spy on each other, but China isn't like other countries: 1) China makes no distinction between economic and state espionage; 2) By law, Chinese companies are obligated to participate in offensive intelligence activities; 3) Civilians overseas, including students, are actively encouraged or coerced into acting as agents of the Communist Party.
The west has tolerated China's rise in the hopes that it would open and democratize. But it's clear now that the CCP never intended to allow that to happen.
37
@Daniel F I'm not so sure any of those three points are all that unique. Certainly point three seems pretty naive - I don't for a moment believe that China is the only country that does this.
More to the point the West had little option but to "tolerate" China's rise. We could have taken more protective measures, but there's no good reason to think these would have yielded better results. As to whether China's rise will lead to an opening-up, it's still too early to say. Deng's reforms have led to significant opening-up, Xi has tended to close this down, or at least de-emphasise it. But these leaders do not have absolute power, nor can they entirely control the longer term effects of their decisions. It remains the case that more exposure to the West for Chinese citizens is likely to lead to more friendly relations in the longer term. Whether it will also lead to democratization, who knows? I don't, but I'm not so sure the likes of XI Jinping really do either.
3
@Simon You're correct, not unique in an absolute sense, but it is unique in the massive scale in which China has leveraged its security and diplomatic apparatuses on ordinary Chinese people here and overseas. This is not a smear or rumor. I know people who have experienced it.
I won't speak for Singapore, but the US doesn't steal trade secrets and hand them over to Google or Boeing. The US doesn't hold American families back home hostage to get students to spy on each other.
What I mean by tolerate is allowing China to steal IP and get around WTO rules in exchange for market access. Yes, Deng's reforms have led to progress, but if you've been to China in the last 3-5 years, you'd see that many of those reforms are stalling or going backwards: continued back peddling on trade agreements, and increasingly extreme media & internet censorship.
Just consider the mainstream reaction to the Hong Kong protests: 20 years ago there would have been broad (if silent) support for HK'ers grievances. Today, my wechat stream is filled with calls to send in the tanks!
Maybe this is China's business, but we can already see CCP repression being exported (e.g. annexing the South China Sea, Hollywood censorship, NBA disaster).
How long will it be until China tries to make the case that Singapore has been "a part of China since ancient times"?
Values matter, and we all need to stand up for them before we no longer have the power to do so
4
Trump was right to call our relationship with China unbalanced, and a confrontation needed to be had. However, until he can get America and the rest of the world on the same page to fight Chinese hegemony, we're fighting a losing battle. Europeans, Japanese, and others will see that America is lost and cut their own deals on trade, technology, and security. This is a fight America must lead, but we need a new president for that.
85
@Ken L Chinese hegemony? that's a joke. Which country has been invaded lately by China? or had bombs dropped on them on false excuses? or which islands like puerto rico or hawaii are 'protectorates' (not very well protected in puerto rico's case) of China? It's funny how abusers claim their victims are the abusers.
1
I thought that since China had McDonalds franchises now that all would be well because countries with McDonalds never went to physical or economic war with each other.
I thought that letting foreigners crowd out Americans in some critical fields of study in *American* universities was just fine because foreign students and professors would transform their countries into open source societies like America,instead of spying, stealing technology and helping their home country eliminate dissent more effectively by building more efficient means of control.
I thought that the only problem with outsourcing was the inconvenient crybaby whining of flyover state manufacturing workers and not instead that along with manufacturing, entire supply chains and related innovation moved to China.
I guess I was wrong. The world isn't flat after all.
I wonder who wrote books with such bad ideas contained within. Be nice if they admitted they were wrong or rethought some basic premises.
8
His china policy might be why the Senate will not oust him. .
3
"...Yet it’s not happening — because all we talk about is Donald Trump." That's true, because democrats cannot tolerate someone not them in power. They see Trump as an existential threat to their dream of progress but here's a thought...China would love to see a US with a diminished influence in the world. And Democrats are ready to hand it to them on a silver platter with economy-wrecking plans to spend 30tr on healthcare and social programs and to wither our military while they pursue America Last trade policies. That would make China very happy, as it has for the past three decades. At least Trump has the guts to stand up not only to the Chinese but the heavily biased anti Trump democrat controlled media at the same time. Good for him.
5
Actually Bernie addressed deindustrialization and trade deficit way before Trump. But, I wouldn’t exactly call him a “democrat.”
18
@RD
If only Trump wasn't willing to give Putin all the world wide influence that you think he denies China.
65
@RD
And look at how great everything is in the MIddle East, our Mid-West, the entire world's climate balance being destroyed.
Heck of a job, trumpie.
118
Mr. Friedman: You have made many assertions. But you have provided no evidence, no statistics, no numbers, to support your thesis. Your argument is thus a tautology: What you say is so, because you say it is so.
There may indeed be costs to economic and technological separation. On the other hand, I could make the same argument, with the same "facts," about the benefit of competition.
The world population is now about 7.5 billion people. Suppose the world becomes economically and technically split 2, or even 3, ways. Are you going to say that an economy of 2.5 billon people, which includes the U.S. and Europe, cannot be viable? If so, I'd like to hear an argument supported by reasons, and reasons supported by evidence.
You have not made such an argument here. All you have told us is that the global economic and technology regime may be changing. And you are sounding an alarm because it's changing. But there is plenty of evidence that the system which may be going away has not necessarily worked in our favor.
It doesn't matter how few, or many, Chinese students in the U.S. are engaging in espionage. All that matters is the value of what they might steal. But making an argument that the number of students engaged in espionage matters is just evidence of your innumerate position.
6
@Robert Henry Eller
Why 'US and Europe'? Europe does not compete against China in geopolitical hegemony; China's B&R is book ended in Europe (see Greek port and German rail terminal); mainland Europe depends on Russia for energy, and Russia is also on the B&R map; afaik, majority of EU nations are not turning away from Huawei, unlike the 5-eyes nation; last but not least, Boeing's loss is AB's gain, a symptomatic zero-sum competition for the burgeoning Chinese market.
An econ-decoupling likely would see the nationalistic re-trenchment of US onto the north America block self and leave the rest of the world to be dominated by the EuroAsia block.
3
Tom, open systems are, well, open, which is to say vulnerable, to espionage. It only takes a small number of well placed human assets to steal a country's intellectual ones. So I will be generous and say the MIT fellow is naive. You, however, should know better.
That said, your plan for a coordinated approach within our government and the free world is a good one.
3
Here’s the good news: With global warming inevitably worsening over the next 50 years or so, civilization as we known it will no longer exist anyway.
3
China is a "future enemy", competitor to the US, the same way the Soviet Union was and it would be stupid for the US to keep bankrolling its future adversary.
The US did not need China or Chinese students and capitals when it was growing back in the 50's.
The economy of the future is digital. Every day we learn how our data are being misused. China has built a great firewall to control its internet, yet wants to take advantage of the open Internet in other countries, especially the West. How duplicitous is that?
The country who controls 5G will control the future. Do you want that future controlled by the Chinese Communist Party? For that is where we are heading if nothing is done. Why do you think Huawei is selling its gears at lost?
I don't support any other Trump policies. But I fully support his trade war against China. It took a non establishment President to finally stand up to China. All previous administrations had done nothing besides talking.
The stronger and wealthier China gets, the more assertive It will be. China did not take over islands in the China Sea 15 years ago, it did recently as its power grew. Just think for a minute what China will be doing 20 years from now if it controls our internet , and has become the wealthiest country on Earth.
Unless China changes, the US should decouple its economy from China. It will be painful, but freedom has no price.
32
@Chaks So "other Presidents didn't do anything about Chinese trade rule abuse"? That's a lie. What DT did was to kill Obamas TPP. That was a crime prepetrated by the ridiculous "Tariff man" Google that.
6
Given our government’s valid mistrust of China, why doesn’t President Trump end birth tourism sponsored by the governments of both Russia and China? Trump endlessly spouts negative commentary on Mexico and other South American countries, yet their citizens come here to work hard, pay taxes and make a better life for themselves and their families. Russia and China conversely send pregnant women here to give birth, gain American citizenship, and later in the future will return these so called “American citizens” for some nefarious purpose. Perhaps this is what the GOP should seriously address and put an end too.
12
Years ago at a Rotary Club lunch the guest speaker bragged about how her company was 'opening' up China to their products by building a manufacturing plant there. The main reason, oft repeated in different ways, seemed to be that China had this vast market of potential consumers and boy! they were going to get in on the gorund floor. I read "greed" here and when she called for questions, I asked what she thought about the fact that China's economic system, socialism, married nicely with it's government system, communism... while the U.S. economic system, capitalism, married nicely with its government system, democracy.
But they don't cross match and asked if her company had considered this incompatibility when making their decision or did all they see a huge and potentially new market?
Her answer was flippant. "We thought about it but we're not worried because we hired some Chinese people who will keep us in the loop."
I think then as I do now..."As if..."
5
The dispositve advantage that China has over the United States is that the Chinese embrace empirical evidence when making existential decisions. That is in sharp contrast to the U.S., where political dogma and the policy ignorance of Donald Trump dominate. The major Chinese vulnerability is its repression of internal dissent,persecution of minorities, and the volatile situation in Hong Kong. These realities have the potential to severely damage the Chinese economy if the government over reacts in its attempts to suppress dissent, resulting in an international boycott of Chinese goods and rejection of Chinese influence.
5
The path to a smaller America will be charted by the smaller minds.
Enlarging the economic space while insisting on greater openness is the smart strategy.
And half the Democratic party always has to be dragged kicking and complaining to more trade and international openness. It has wanted to wall off Mexico for decades.
The New York Times never disappoints. It supports its own version of the status quo. The "industry" in the US that has benefited most from the growth of China has been the Finance Industry. In spite of cliches like "financial instruments", finance basically makes its money by selling "Ideas" many of which have proven to be disasters. Anyone on this thread remember Brooksley Born? She advocated for a transparent and regulated market in derviatives during the Clinton Administration. Finance benefited tremendously from the transfer of a river of wealth to China. Instead of investing in better tools and processes, the finance industry's idea of innovation is to invest as little as possible and make money from the skim of wealth transference.
In this essay, I see some of the same old same old nostrums that have been proffered by those who enjoy the status quo. There are plenty of talented individuals in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Africa and Latin America to fill graduate student positions at US universities.
This is not to say that we completely close out China; however, there is a difference between constructive and beneficial engagment versus kowtowing to a Power Elite that has never created the institutions and laws to regulate their excesses. We've had 30+ years of China-lite when it comes to the creation of our own set of oligarchs.
Time to support Western civilization and its institutions instead of continously debasing it.
14
@Rick
Transparent markets? bwahaaaaaa. Both parties have catered to the financial industry destroying US industries that actually MADE things.
Charlie Rose interviewed Sir James Goldsmith in 1994 prior to the passage of GATT. HE warned that free trade would destroy the jobs base in the US. It was more than profits it was about preserving our democracy. Without a solid jobs base to support the working and middle classes you have a descent into chaos and revolution.
4
"At the same time, U.S. manufacturers are saying to themselves: We’d better think twice about building our next factory in China or solely depending on a supply chain from there."
trxmp and his people interpret this as proof that the next factory will instead be built in the US. Couldn't be more wrong. Think Vietnam, India, Malaysia, Brazil. US corporations are certainly not going to go from a low cost location to a high cost location. His supporters are in favour of a jobs policy that makes sure jobs *stay* overseas. The mind reels.
7
Couldn't agree more. Manufacturers have been spooked by the tweets that have destabilized their dependency on a stable market.
@Stevenz
Virtually any other country is better than China because they're not aiming at world domination through treachery.
3
The CEOs sold our nation's know-how by transferring the technology to Chinese partners. Yes, they (the US corporations) made huge piles of money by simply moving their factories, paying low wages to Chinese workers and selling goods at comparatively high prices in the US. Note it is not simply manufacturing, but the associated product designs (design for manufacturing) and years of process know-how that were transferred by the US corporations.
Now that we find ourselves at the receiving end, the so called US thought leaders don't have any strategic approaches to compete against increasing Chinese technological prowess.
39
Mr. Friedman, I cannot agree that being economically and intellectually fleeced by China is the best policy. It is clear that exactly this policy raised China to where it is right now economically. And we should remember that this is an authoritarian country with two main actors: Mr. Xi and the Politburo. China's goal is to be the largest economy and any stall may bring turmoil. Xi presides over repressions of Muslims in China, major turmoil in Hong Kong, possible political backlash in Taiwan. Many of China's neighbors are apprehensive of China's expansionist foreign policy. Xi has been too aggressive on too many fronts. At which moment something will go wrong and either Xi will overplay his hand or Politburo will force his hand or him out, we don't know. It is better to try to decouple from China now and be ready for all eventualities rather than be easy on them and thus give the illusion that they will have a free hand under any circumstances.
5
I have friends in China. They were born in a tiny room that was all their parents could afford, barely enough to eat, no electricity, not enough coal to keep warm in winter.
Now they have a four bedroom flat with A/C in summer and hot water heating beginning 1 Nov (it's chilly in October and no heat, but they manage), and they're thinking of maybe buying a car, but the public transport is excellent, so it's not really necessary. They don't feel repressed at all. Their children all know how to get around the Great Firewall and read the Western (or at least the Taiwan or Hong Kong) version of what's happening. The grandoarents are in their 80s and get excellent health care. Never has any nation come so far, so fast.
The US must figure out how to live with China.
7
@Michael
This sounds like Chinese propaganda. I have friends in China too. People in rural China do not get excellent health care. They die at home because they can't afford to stay in a hospital. My friends cannot read the New York Times or access Instagram or YouTube. The privileged class there may have the kind of life you describe but not everyone. Sure, their material life has improved but what about their ability to think and speak freely. Maybe those who avoid expressing political opinions contrary to the party line don't feel repressed but what about those who have contrarian ideas and haven't been numbed over time by the government's propaganda machine? China wants to export its ideas to the rest of the world but the world will never accept a society whose government is so intent on controlling people's minds. Why do you think the people of Hong Kong (who know what it's like to live in a free-thinking society) are fighting so fiercely to preserve their free spirits?
17
@Michael Of course, China has grown quickly in large part through beneficial (mostly to China) relationships with US companies, access to US markets, and by stealing technology. It's clear now that China has no intention of democratizing even gradually, however, as other countries such as Korea and Taiwan did. The costs to the world of having its largest economy be a dictatorship are such that the US must figure out how to live without China. That doesn't mean it should undertake dumb measures such as not selling to Hauwei, because this unnecessarily raises walls. However, not allowing Hauwei to build our 5G networks and keeping high tariffs against Chinese products make sense. because these reflect the problems the world will face with a dictatorship in a leadership position.
1
I have friends in China. They were born in a tiny room that was all their parents could afford, barely enough to eat, no electricity, not enough coal to keep warm in winter.
Now they have a four bedroom flat with A/C in summer and hot water heating beginning 1 Nov (it's chilly in October and no heat, but they manage), and they're thinking of maybe buying a car, but the public transport is excellent, so it's not really necessary. They don't feel repressed at all. Their children all know how to get around the Great Firewall and read the Western (or at least the Taiwan or Hong Kong) version of what's happening. The grandoarents are in their 80s and get excellent health care. Never has any nation come so far, so fast.
The US must figure out how to live with China.
1
The trade war is already won and China is the winner. While I strongly believe that the treatment by the Chinese government of many is abominable, in the end China will survive. One need only look at the enormous advances the government and economy of China has made in the past few years to understand how very important this country is in the world. Why does one think that Tesla is building a huge factory in Singapore if not to get a strong foothold in the Chinese market. Unless and until we have a new government the economic situation in the United States will continue to fall behind.
As for the mistreatments of people in China why don’t we mention the slaughter of native Americans and slavery in the United States?
6
@Jordan Davies
Are you really trying to justify China's actions NOW by talking about sins our ancestors committed 150 years ago?
Why don't we mention slavery? We do, quite a lot. And we talk seriously about reparations.
That argument reminds me of a friend who justified his vote for Trump by blustering, "Well what about Hillary's shenanigans?" I'm sure that a professor of rhetoric could come up with a term of art for "a distracting and irrelevant comparison."
3
Bob
Ok you made a valid point. But I’m not trying to justify China’s treatment of their people by comparing it to the sins of our past. But our country has done some awful things and yes your professor of rhetoric would call me out on my remark.
We don't need to worry about China. Only a free and open society in which there are no limits on the most counter-intuitive inspirations can do what we have done. Sure China can do pretty well competing with companies like Apple and Google and facebook and Amazon and a whole host of other world beating new ideas from this country, but their rigid society will never be known for norm shattering foundational ideas like those that made these American companies into powerhouses.
4
I completely agree with your opinion piece. The political fight now is not right versus left, it is open versus closed. I am firmly in the open camp. Outside the USA, the common thought is that Huawei was targeted because it is a better product than Apple.
2