The West is at a loss: what to do with China?

Запад в растерянности: что делать с Китаем?

During the recent meeting of the Americans, Chinese and Europeans in Stockholm to discuss the rise of China and the new world order, the British journalist, columnist of “the Economist”, the Bureau chief in Beijing and author of on China column called Chaguan* David Rennie (David Rennie) asked the question: tell anyone anything positive on China? After two days of bleak talk of trade wars and sharp speeches about the fact whether the right of Europeans to criticize the Chinese leadership, the Chinese party expressed optimism that Brakcet China opens new opportunities. As soon as the UK will leave the EU, she will need all the friends she can find.The forum is held every six months with the participation of politicians, bureaucrats, ambassadors, business elite, scientists and journalists. It was created as a platform for overcoming transatlantic differences on the policy of China after the crisis in 2004. Then France has outraged America, proposing to abolish the EU embargo on arms sales to China imposed after the crackdown in Tiananmen square in 1989. According to the observations of David Rennie since he started in 2008 to participate in the forum, the atmosphere at these meetings became increasingly tense, despite the inexhaustible reserves of good coffee and Swedish cinnamon rolls. On the forum in 2018, the Americans and Europeans arguing about the foreign policy of President Donald trump. This time it was different. And panel discussions, and behind-the-scenes conversation was imbued with a sense of despair. The participants were unanimous that China is not going to change their model of authoritarian state capitalism.The West has for some time increased joint opinion on the fact that China is determined to develop on its own, from the point of view of the West, destructive, and now this gloomy prospect seems very real. Today, the author believes that views on globalization and the benefits of openness are tested for strength. Previously, interdependence was seen as a way to avoid conflict, but now it is obvious that it can also make countries vulnerable.David Rennie notices that on the Forum many talked about the tariff war between Donald trump and that this war may end up that China will pave your way to a truce by the purchase, for example, large quantities of soy beans in farm States, so you need the Trump for re-election. Nominated cynical assumptions about what it could mean. Spoke and in the way that such a scenario will enable China to simply ignore American demands for structural changes in the economy of China.Both the Americans and the Europeans fear Chinese version of state capitalism, in which foreign companies have to buy access to Chinese markets, handing local rivals Western technology, and government — sensitive data. The sad experience of American basketball players — the Chinese authorities refused long-term cooperation with the Us national basketball Association after the speech, her head in support Goncharsky protesters, demonstrates that they will have to accept the Chinese position on Hong Kong, Taiwan and other national ethnic groups.On the sidelines of the forum, a senior administration official trump, when asked about trade negotiations, clearly stated that they still aim to force China to change their methods of solving problems. But he also said that if China does not change its attitude, then America will have reason to limit its cooperation with the Chinese leadership: “if we assume that China will stand your ground and refuse to carry out any structural reforms, in this case, the strategy and tactics of China will become more understandable for the world.”David Rennie writes that the Chinese participants of the forum stated in turn that China is also committed to ending the trade conflict through negotiations, and today the country is increasingly dependent on U.S. markets, technology and even education, they also called on Europeans to remember the ambitions of their countries in relation to the strategy of independence and to reflect on their differences with America, a country that is still in the power of the cold war.The Europeans, as the author writes, waved, in their opinion, frivolous attempts to sow discord, but noted that America is more fearful of the growing military and political power of China, while Europe is mainly concerned about the economic influence of China. Unlike the Americans, the Europeans hope to establish relations and to conclude more trade agreements with China. For example, on 11 November, the British Ministers endorsed the decision of Chinese firms to buy British steel company British Steel, which is on the verge of bankruptcy.However while the Europeans are insured and strongly support strategically important for the economy of their countries industries. So, in January of this year the German Federation of industries warned against “excessive dependence” of the Chinese market, which indicates the alarm state of corporate executives about the political costs of doing business in and with China, as well as about how substantial these costs can become. European countries more than before, check Chinese investment and scientific exchanges on the subject of risk at the level of national security. Among them was Sweden — a champion of free trade, which had previously worried that the calls for reciprocity with China talking about protectionism.David Rennie sarcastically remarks that the experienced veterans of the Stockholm international Forum to assess realistically the border of West unity and courage in the face of China. The West, as they severally believe should try not to harm yourself. The Americans and the Europeans warned against the infusion of public funds into domestic companies to keep up with the subsidies enjoyed by Chinese companies. China will win this race, they said, and better enforce rules against destabilizing market subsidies for all firms, whether foreign or domestic. If Western governments choose the industry who want to advance, they must invest in research, education or infrastructure, and to attract skilled immigrants.Once, the author writes, Western speakers during these meetings urged China to be too smart. They developed ingenious ways to explain why liberal economic and even political reform was in China’s interest. However, this time it was not. A speaker from China said that his country is “too big, too old and too conservative” to accept a different model. Some Westerners even dared to suggest that the policy of authoritarian totalitarianism is likely to harm China in the long term, the Chinese retorted and simply criticized a “culture of arrogance”. It is better to talk than to fight, but even the conversations can still be bleak.

Share Button