5 ms·
China is setting up a 'New Silk Road' [1], not the darknet one but resurgence of their trade dominance of Asia from the past. China is also benefiting their tr
by drawkbox 11y ago
China is setting up a 'New Silk Road' [1], not the darknet one but resurgence of their trade dominance of Asia from the past. China is also benefiting their trade partners in ways that the US doesn't always and we should. The original silk road was known for bringing riches to all points on the routes.
China also has presence in the South China Sea where 2/3rds of all trade go through, it is the reason they are adding new islands there as well. CNN recently had this in the news but it is ultimately protection for the trade routes through the South China Sea.
They have also been diplomatically setting up station in Yemen [2] and Somalia [3] along the Suez Canal trade route. So at major points of the water based trade routes, China is owning them or taking control of them.
China is also building a massive trade route through Pakistan to the Gwadar and Karachi ports in Iran and Pakistan, very close to Iraq + India and near Afghanistan[4]. Completely within Pakistan/Iran, it is another route around the South China sea into/near the Persian Gulf.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 left China with huge advantages in exports and currency tools due to large currency purchases in other countries, that are smart for them and bad for the US in terms of running trade in Asia and currency values. We have slipped a bit, largely this is due to short term thinking and overt control of trade partners, while China is very long term. We are giving up alot in the TPP because we never really have, we have to convince countries to trade with us for our advantages and theirs, over what China is offering.
Trade agreements aren't always bad. But the problem in the US now, due to the control of them, they are usually bad for the workers and great for corporations. The problem with the TPP is that corporate riders have attached on in ways that are solely focused in greed, over the workers of the US and protections for US.
You could argue that China lent us the money to get into debt to them to allow them to do this while we were bogged down with wars, unwinnable wars, with force in the Middle East around the same areas.
We forgot how to benefit countries and even our own now. We need more Marshall Plan type liberation through economic advantages for all countries involved (including us) to be a better option for trading partners. China is winning the game, that is why this is fast tracked but it is also bad for the US internally but the other option is losing more trade dominance. Noone wants to join the mean person's team when there is a more friendly option that is mutually beneficial, or to pick sides.
The Yale article on the new Chinese Silk Road (One Belt, One Road initiative) mentions a fundamental problem in our reasoning in this snippet:
Will supporting China's One Belt, One Road, compromise core universal values and high environmental and labor standards? These are key areas where the US can show leadership and remain a keystone of the 21st century global economic architecture. But a keystone must work with other stones rather than stand alone.
It is a pretty easy sell for the Chinese to these countries like Pakistan, Iran etc with us right on their doorstep and without a good economic mutually beneficial plan for the places we 'liberated'. Iraq and Afghanistan should have been nation building as the main goal, but it appears we created chaos a decade later. Force doesn't always work but better quality of life always works, always brings more money. We should leave places in a state like Japan or South Korea, not how we left Iraq/Afghanistan/etc. Now China is also getting defense/military power to contain these areas.
This is a massive world change. We can't change it with force this time, China is everyone's biggest trade partner including ours. It would be better to work it out with them than exclude them. We have to benefit the US and other countries with trade, not take everyone down. China is doing the opposite and the better deal will win.
As a US citizen it is hard to think we benefit others if our trade agreements harm the lower classes in the US so much, what are we doing elsewhere. We used to build good trade partners up and they thrive. What happened?
[1] http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/china%E2%80%99s-new-silk-road-implications-us http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/china%E2%80%99s-new-silk-...
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/03/31/what-yemens-crisis-reveals-about-chinas-growing-global-power/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/03/31...
[3] http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/after-23-years-china-to-reopen-embassy-in-somalia/ http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/after-23-years-china-to-reope...
[4] http://tribune.com.pk/story/896213/pakistan-dismisses-indias-concerns-over-china-pakistan-economic-corridor/ http://tribune.com.pk/story/896213/pakistan-dismisses-indias...
- harshreality 11y agoIf they'd just drop the horrible intellectual property provisions, which aren't even relevant to geo-strategic trade, I wouldn't care so much what kind of geo-strategic trade deal they wanted to negotiate in secret.
- drawkbox 11y agoI agree. Drop the requirements that were easy to stiff arm in after WWII but that luster has worn off. We might have to compromise. I don't understand why we can't just say the real reason for the TPP publicly, China is winning world trade, then discuss the trade agreements more in the open. Let people know how it will affect them, give groups time to setup alternate paths for work/options. Secrecy is a short term thought path, we need long term planning and we need to give people a heads up. The general populace can't really vote on it anyways and our opinion doesn't impact decisions like this unless it is a corporate or wealth influence [1] Congress is acting like a manager that 'protects' you from problems that ends up causing more problems. Then one day, protected you so good the company shut down the division or similar. Informed people always fair better, they can plan better, they can survive better. [1] https://represent.us/action/theproblem-4/ https://represent.us/action/theproblem-4/ (video describes the study that only money has an effect on what is passed)
- thomnottom 11y agoWhile the IP sections are horrendous, it's dangerous to ignore the problems inherent with the investor-state dispute section(s). There are already multiple cases involving corporations suing countries for having laws that prevent them from making money in their preferred manner. Increasing the scope or range of those conflicts will strip more nations (including the US) of self-government. I don't want to come off as hyperbolic, but these provisions can seriously undermine any future legislation and nation might want to undertake in order to protect their resources or population.
- snowwrestler 11y agoISDS complaints can only win if the government is shown to unfairly hobble foreign investors, for example a regulation that says "companies owned by Americans can pollute twice as much as companies owned by Malaysians." That's not the way that U.S. law works; our laws are based on measurable standards that apply equally to all companies regardless of who owns them. That's why the U.S. has never lost an ISDS case in the decades they have already been in force.