One of the most troubling aspects of our current culture is the staggering lack of context surrounding complex issues. This week China is becoming a popular subject, as they are viewed as a major economic challenge to the United States.
While it is true that trade policy with China places great stress on our economy, it is at the same time a consequence of decisions we've made over the last four decades. The economic cost of our policies do actually have a geopolitical offset, which must be included in the debate.
I myself am in favor of reworking many of these trade policies, but we must not become reactionary in our approach.
I'm not going to get into all the gritty details of tariffs and currency manipulation, because that really distracts from the bigger picture. Let's simply say this.
Over many decades we have allowed China's economy to grow at the expense of our own.
This is not an accident of history, and it is not the result of some secret cabal. These policies existed as part of an overall foreign policy strategy by the United States government. It started under Nixon and has continued to this day.
We really don't discuss international politics much any more. Phrases like 'balance of power' are rarely discussed. There was a time when the average American news consumer was interested in the goings on of other countries, but since the cold war ended we've become very self involved.
During the cold war China remained a very guarded society. The way we see North Korea now was very similar to the political atmosphere surrounding China. Even the neighboring Soviet Union wasn't sure what to make of the billion people just to the east of them.
World War II was still a very recent memory in the minds of many leaders across the globe. Much of the political thought revolved around concrete steps to preventing such escalations in the future. Both the left and the right had adopted policies of early intervention, though the methods differed. Still Jack Kennedy and Richard Nixon had the same general goals regarding the need for global stability.
Obviously China represented a major riddle in this equation. It was an industrialized nation, which contained a fifth of the world's population. Its political, economic and social structures appeared unsustainable over the long term. It nuclear missiles were aimed at the United States and Russia alike. With all of this capacity for massive instability it was troublesome to every major power that it remained so isolated and opaque.
Thus began the great push to encourage economic participation with China. It was a series of deals that benefited all parties involved. China could maintain its political power through economic incentives to its people, and the rest of the world received assurances of political stability in Asia.
It was under President Clinton that the walls really began falling in relations with China, though it was partially due to efforts by every President before him. When China absorbed Hong Kong, the changes were in place to insure Hong Kong had as much influence on Beijing, as Beijing had on Hong Kong. If Reagan's greatest accomplishment was tearing down the Berlin Wall, Clinton was able to tear down an equally significant veil around China.
Now here is the real challenge facing us today. China, despite all its faults, is a million times better today than during the cultural revolution. China is forced to participate in global stability, because its society is dependent upon the functions of other markets. In this way our foreign policies efforts were successful. China has a stake in world peace. Like every other industrialized nation on the planet, they have become a mixed economy.
The question becomes how much we can dial back those measures, while assuring China's continued stability. Internally China still faces very real social pressures, which would be hard for American politics to comprehend. Providing economic stability and government services to 1.4 billion people is no small task.
To give you an idea, the United States has 300 million people living in a $14.6 trillion dollar economy. China has 5 times as many people living in a $5.7 trillion dollar economy. They are the world's second largest economy, but there is a pretty big gap between number 1 and number 2.
Obviously China will act in its best interest in regards to trade policy, so vilifying them is rather pointless. The problem isn't China, India or any other emerging economy we want to scape goat.
The real problem is that we haven't really had a true debate in this country on what America's role will be in the post cold war era. As strange as it seems, we've allowed ourselves to continue approaching the world as if it all needs rebuilt after WWII. We still maintain NATO, which existed for the singular purpose of protecting Europe from Soviet threat.
This is a debate, which we can't afford to ignore. We can't have it, if we remain stuck in the culture wars during the height of the cold war. Not once in these recent election cycles has trade policy become a priority. If national defense is a major factor in elections, trade policy should be just as huge. Trade policy is the means by which we maintain normalized relations with the rest of the world.
If you are on the right and believe the US needs to focus on national security, then trade relations dictate the threat to our nation. If you are on the left and believe war is unjust, then trade relations are the language of peace. Either way it is time we start addressing these very important issues like adults.