A lot of US discourse laments, and presupposes, that the rise of China was enabled by US policy, i.e., by promoting China's accession to the WTO. (Even PRC shills like Branko think this.) But why couldn't China have done most of what it has done since ~1980 under GATT rules? - ThreadSky

pseudoerasmus.bsky.social • 24 days ago

A lot of US discourse laments, and presupposes, that the rise of China was enabled by US policy, i.e., by promoting China's accession to the WTO. (Even PRC shills like Branko think this.)

But why couldn't China have done most of what it has done since ~1980 under GATT rules?

Comments

pseudoerasmus.bsky.social•24 days ago

( "US policy unwittingly enabled the rise of its greatest strategic challenger" is simply a variation on the moronic "development by invitation" model through which too many people understand East Asian development generally. )

oldjacket.bsky.social•24 days ago

I think the hypothetical they entertain is something much more like how we treat Iran.

pseudoerasmus.bsky.social•24 days ago

why would that ever happened in any realistic scenario?

urbfuturistdem.bsky.social•24 days ago

Right, like, we opened an embassy in Beijing in 1979 and we still don't have formal relations with Iran. And we were voting them MFN status consistently starting the year after that

pseudoerasmus.bsky.social•24 days ago

Since 1978, why would the USA have ever treated China like it treats Iran? Why? There's no scenario where that's plausible.

urbfuturistdem.bsky.social•24 days ago

Right, strongly agree. Teeeeechnically we sort of did so before the thaw, because CAMMANISTS, but everyone saw that was unsustainable at the time too, hence Nixon.

oldjacket.bsky.social•24 days ago

That’s the wonderful thing about backseat driving on policy

pseudoerasmus.bsky.social•24 days ago

I don't know what that means, but in the late 1970s, it was explicit US policy to warm up to China to split them from the USSR. After China began reforms, people talked of nothing else but the lucrative China market! There's absolutely nothing comparable with Iran!

robertpauls.bsky.social•24 days ago

The PRC never was a contracting party to GATT.

pseudoerasmus.bsky.social•24 days ago

No, it wasn't, but I'm merely asserting GATT rules that reigned in the 1950s-80s made the world sufficiently open to permit export-led development by poor countries. WTO rules were not necessary, though many people cite China's accession to the WTO as a key event in Chinese development.

robertpauls.bsky.social•24 days ago

It’s a plausible assumption but by no means a certain one given GATT rules allowed discrimination against non-members. The East Asian late developers all were members.

pseudoerasmus.bsky.social•24 days ago

But China had had MFN status since 1980. What changed with WTO accession was that the US Congress made that status permanent. We also know the marginal effects of the change in status: far from trivial, but hardly crucial to the 'rise of China'.

robertpauls.bsky.social•24 days ago

Yes, but MFN status was conditional on annual presidential approval. So the argument that the US grew their own competitor still stands, I’d say. Not implausible either.

pseudoerasmus.bsky.social•24 days ago

I’m not saying US policy made zero contribution to China’s rise. I’m saying its contribution was limited. China’s exports to the USA maxed out at something like 21-22% of total. Even without MFN status the share might have been in the teens.

brankomilan.bsky.social•24 days ago

Not exactly, this "shill" believes that the key moment was not WTO accession, but the US decision to normalize relations w/ China and to open the same doors for the export of goods and import of technology as the US did for Japan, South Korea & Taiwan.

pseudoerasmus.bsky.social•24 days ago

Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan received no preferential access to the US market. That is a myth. To the contrary, they had to fight protectionist sentiments in Congress!

I agree that the normalisation of relations with the PRC was necessary but this was dictated by Cold War strategic reasons

brankomilan.bsky.social•24 days ago

"but this was dictated by Cold War strategic reasons." Totally agree.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply