4 ms·
Some people will contest your question's premise, but there's also a geopolitical argument. There's a strong sentiment in certain circles that the best way to
by throwawayjava 8y ago
Some people will contest your question's premise, but there's also a geopolitical argument.
There's a strong sentiment in certain circles that the best way to deal with emerging powers is by incorporating them into global neoliberal institutions. The theory is that including these countries sets up the correct incentives for liberalization, and that liberal markets beget a middle clas s which eventually demands democratic voice. And democracies are western-friendly.
So the roadmap for China was supposed to be a gradual liberalization, first economically and then politically. This strategy is a long game and "requires patience".
I'm not particularly convinced by this argument (it's too... cold war-y), but I'm doing my best to portray it accurately. And if you accept its basic premise, then there's a strong geopolitical long-game case for "putting up with" asymmetric trade barriers.
- defen 8y ago> The theory is that including these countries sets up the correct incentives for liberalization, and that liberal markets beget a middle clas s which eventually demands democratic voice. And democracies are western-friendly. That was supposed to be the plan, but the Chinese government didn't blink in 1989, when the demand for democracy happened. And they suffered no consequence for it. In retrospect that is when we should have realized that the script wasn't going to work.
- throwawayjava 8y agoAs I indicated in my post, you'll find no disagreement here. It's just one consistent worldview that answers rayiner's question.
- defen 8y agoRight, I agree that it's a good high-level assessment of US geopolitical strategy. Was just offering an idea of when we possibly should have realized it wasn't going to work on China.