Gefährliche Täuschung – Warum sich nach China einsetzt, ist ein großer Fehler für Kanada: Stephen Nagy im National Security Journal – China bietet nur Transaktionsbeziehungen, die die politische Einhaltung als Preis für den Marktzugang erfordern.
Gefährliche Täuschung – Warum sich nach China einsetzt, ist ein großer Fehler für Kanada: Stephen Nagy im National Security Journal – China bietet nur Transaktionsbeziehungen, die die politische Einhaltung als Preis für den Marktzugang erfordern.
8 Kommentare
>China offers only transactional relationships that demand political compliance as the price of market access.
And the Americans are the exact same way now. Purely transactional and demanding we drop whatever laws they don’t like.
Possibly worse as Trump is completely unhinged.
A transactional relationship with China typical requires less political compliance than it does to maintain one with the US.
I mean our alliance with the US has led us down political compliance for the same reason for decades, we’ve looked past all their human rights abuses the world over and called them „our best friends“ for ages.
And that’s not to say China doesn’t have problems, those just aren’t entirely convincing when we can demonstrate that Canada overlooks that kind of thing all the time.
This article paints China as some kind of mastermind that is plotting to destroy America’s alliances, completely ignoring the fact that the US is destroying 80 years of alliances of their own volition, and China is just watching in bewilderment as they’re handed the world on a silver platter.
The only difference between China and America on „transactional relationships that demand political compliance as the price of market access“ is that America is arbitrary, which is terrible for business.
„China offers only transactional relationships that demand political compliance as the price of market access.“
And that is different from the US how exactly???
I don’t think we should pivot to be China’s bitch. But clearly the US has by the balls. Several economists including Benjamin Tal predicts that despite our efforts, in 20 years we will be just as or more dependent on the US than we are now. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try though.
The summary says it all.
This would be a devastatingly stupid pivot. Our pivot should be the remaining (relatively) free nations in the world, not Russia’s chief financier and the world’s engine to despotism.
What a profoundly stupid article from the first sentence
>China’s behavior has not changed since the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
You cannot know ANYTHING about the history of modern China and say this with a straight face.
Like, this is laughably stupid as a statement. It is followed up with:
>It aims to create wedges between America and its allies in the hope of undermining U.S. economic, political, diplomatic and security interests in the Indo-Pacific region.
Are we supposed to understand that U.S. interests are inherently good and benevolent?
>Since the arrest of Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou in 2018, China has systematically worked to drive wedges between Ottawa and Washington.
…The arrest of Meng Wanzhou was literally part of Washington’s systematic work to drive a wedge between China and Ottawa. They could have arrested her themselves, or had literally anyone else do it. It was a calculated decision to do exactly what the author purports.
As usual, every accusation is a confession.
The rest of the article is a laundry list of conservative grievances, some of which bear no relationship to reality, for example rehashing the well confirmed as myth „debt trap diplomacy“ that has been so thoroughly debunked no one who brings it up can be taken seriously.
What a profoundly terrible article from a clear neo-con pundit.