Trading with the Adversary (Part II) "Make Loot not War"

By Rep. Thaddeus McCotter Posted in | Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

When last we chatted, I noted how the Republican Party neglected to send me the memo renouncing anti-communism; and how someone neglected to send the communists a memo informing them they were no longer evil. I imagine the latter memo read thus:

Dear Friends (nee “Comrades”),
Since you lack a free press, let us be the first to inform you the West has won the Cold War against the Soviet Union. Sure, we did not directly defeat your tyrannical regime, but the big bear is tamed and so are you.
Thus, it is time for you to be sporting about this:
(1) Abandon your evil ideology;
(2) Free your enslaved peoples; and
(3) Play nice.
To hasten you transition, we have taken the liberty (no offense meant) to attach an article on “The End of History” and a copy of the 1970s’ seminal foreign policy treatise, “I’m O.K., You’re O.K.” If this insufficiently helpful, we will wage a campaign of schlock and awe against your tyrannical regimes which will culminate in a group hug on Oprah or an unwelcome visit from James Earl Carter. (Name your poison!) If still you persist, we will achieve your utter destruction by unleashing upon you a rain of riches unseen in human history.
Humbly Submitted,
The West

Read on . . .

This latter proved no idle threat. In the years since President Clinton (who, as candidate Clinton – remember him? – promised to get “tough” with the butchers of Tiananmen Square) signed the Permanent Normalization of Trade Relations with communist China (H.R. 4444) on May 24, 2000, the West has adopted a dubious “Make Loot Not War” strategy of pacifying communist regimes through trade and vainly hoping it undermines their ideology. To us recalcitrant Reaganite fossils still wedded to the antiquated concept of America’s moral duty to help all human beings breathe free, the early returns alarm.

Teetering on the edge of the ash can of history when it killed kids in Tiananmen Square for quoting Thomas Jefferson, Beijing’s communist regime has made a comeback worthy of Dick Nixon. Thanks to the West’s “Make Loot Not War” strategy, communist China rules the world’s fastest growing economy – an estimated 2006 GDP of $10 trillion dollars with a 10.5% growth rate. (This is reminiscent of the 1950’s Soviet Union – remember them? Didn’t their brief surge of prosperity transform Lenin’s spawn into liberal snuggle bunnies?) As of January 2007, communist China held $353.6 billion in U.S. Treasury Bonds and, including non-treasury securities, as of 2005 they held over $527.3 billion in total U.S. debt. (Overall, from 2004-2005, communist China’s holdings of U.S. debt increased by 54.6%). Further, as of December 31, 2006, these entrepreneurial Maoists had a trade surplus with the United States of $232,548,600 (up 17% over the prior year). Who’d have ever thought trading with a slave labor regime would be so expensive?

Given Western elites’ odes to this vanguard of the proletariat’s new penchant for riches, one is tempted to assume these kinder, gentler Chinese communists are conscientiously using their new-found wealth to advance worthy causes, such as promoting dolphin-free tuna and refurbishing the Clinton library’s “jungle room.” But these running dogs of communism evidently believe charity begins at home. This year, communist China’s defense spending will be $45 billion (up 17.8%), the largest increase in the past half-decade. This is not to say Beijing’s priorities are exclusively parochial. Communist China is spending billions around the globe to acquire resources from and cement its relations with pro-American nations, like Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and, yes, Comrade Putin’s Russia (through such benevolent associations as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – remember them?). In sum, communist China is spending the literally boatloads of money we ship them in some very curious places. At this “end of history,” it’s a good thing there’s no such thing as a “world-wide communist menace.”

At the risk of sounding ungrateful, in addition to our burgeoning foreign debt and trade deficit, the destruction of our domestic manufacturing base, and their defense build up and investment in America’s enemies – oops, “adversaries” – what other boons have we bought with our “peaceful co-existence” with communist China?

Well, there have been some attempts at “reforms,” though Chinese communists have reverted to form on key human rights issues by committing numerous and heinous abuses of their subjugated people’s human rights. Still, if one ignores the fact the communist party, not the government, is the supreme ruler, one could claim progress in the realm of legislative elections. One must also ignore how, in 2004, communist China’s highest “legislature” blocked Hong Kong’s efforts toward a direct democracy on the grounds changes needed to be gradual, lest they endanger the people’s “stability” and “prosperity.” To be fair, one should not ignore the fact elections in communist China do occur in selected rural communities for village leader and for local “People’s Congresses,” which then conduct an election for the next higher level of “People's Congresses” and, ultimately, for the national “legislature.” But to be heartened by this development, one must ignore the fact the “voters” choose only amongst eight small, officially registered parties controlled by the Chinese Communist Party; one must ignore the fact no subversive political opposition groups legally exist; and one must ignore the fact the regime has identified the Falungong spiritual movement and the China Democracy Party as subversive groups. Come to think of it, at this rate of “reform” in communist China, the West will have to ignore the fact we will go broke before we buy them off.

This fact the communist Chinese do not ignore, as they execute their strategy of “Make Loot Then War.”

[To be continued…]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but was not Reagan - and Bush 41 after him -- a great proponent of the notion of "Constructive Engagement?"

Perhaps I'm misreading your article, but it does sound a bit like you are calling for a return to 'brinksmanship' and overt confrontation as a policy, which rather seems to fly in the face of the entire stretch of policy over the Regan - Bush 41 - Clinton administration?

I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy here -- if you feel we need a return to a stronger policy, then so be it -- but it doesn't seem to me that this is a Johnny-come-lately policy, this "peaceful co-existence" that we used to call "Constructive Engagement", but rather has been the policy for nearly 25 years now...?

---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute.
But set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Reagan and Bush did not go out and sign Free Trade Agreements with Gorbachev. They did not hand over the economic production of our country to Russian Comnmunists. They engaged the USSR in dialogue, and of course, arms negotiations, but they did not reward the operators of the gulags with open access to our markets.

The Congressman is not advocating brinkmanship. He is advocating at the very least to expect some sort of quid pro quo from the Chinese for all of these benefits that we afford them. All we get now is no progress toward an open society, no progress towards basic human rights for many Chinese citizens, saber rattling and miltary buildups over our support for Taiwan and Hong Kong, and a government that is more than willing to use its wealth to prop up those that openly seek the destruction of the United States and her (true) allies.

I can't disagree with the Congressman that we are effectively "giving the milk away for free." If the Communists will not make any steps that further our interests, why should we continue to lavish them with open access?

I merely wanted to point out that it isn't as though we suddenly emerged from years of NON-engagement and a cold war stance and looked around and abruptly found ourselves entangled with China and Russia, like we just dropped our pants on anti-communism last week. This has been a long and deliberate process of mutual investment and interest that's been going on ever since the Reagan era, and had a lot to do with his policies.

But I *do* agree that we are far too financially entangled with China for our own good, Communist nation or not. The amount of our housing market that is held by the Chinese in the form of their cash invested in the market is far, far too high for our economic health. I think that we should all be able to agree that the level of Chinese investment in American property and debt is worrisome, no matter what the form of their government is.

---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute.
But set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

The problem is that the (formerly?) communist Russia and (definitely) communist China have been backsliding on their ends of the deal. Putin is becoming increasingly hostile to his own 'pro-capitalist' (read, freedom-loving) people, while the Chinese have been systematically appropriating (read, hijacking, stealing and pirating) intellectual property for the purpose of lining the pockets of their Mao Jackets. Maybe it is "brinksmanship" to insist on responsible actions from all parties, but I tend to think of it as only fair.

As someone who has parents that live in China (ironically transfered under Granholm not Dick DeVos) and from someone who has been there, I find your rhetoric quite harsh. The PRC will not last and our trade has much to do with it.

They have already begun a slippery slope of capitalist reforms. This has favored the wealthy in the big cities. They crave capitalism and want more. Meanwhile, the rural parts of China (the heart of China) suffers from some of the worse poverty in the world. The farm policies are complicated - somewhat socialist/state-owned. Regardless, the poor will threaten revolt and the rich will not stand in the way as they have seen the wonders of capitalism and democracy.

The Party has already begun capitalism reform and there is no turning back (the wealthy won't allow it).Quite simply, capitalism can not exist without democracy.

If history has shown us anything, it's that sanctions don't work. Trade, on the other hand, works wonders to incite revolution and reform in backward nations.

The concept of sanctions is that, eventually, the people will rise up and blame their leaders for their misery. Good enough in theory, but Castro has been in power for fifty years or so, and you don't hear much about North Korea's struggle for liberty.

Trade, on the other hand, works to empower the people directly, and they use that newfound power to petition the government to make reforms so that they can benefit even further. Free trade rots away at the foundation of dictatorships, isolation only strengthens it.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service