Live data from Hacker News

How China got a U.S. senator to do its political bidding

washingtonpost.com

81–90 of 119 posts

Re: How China got a U.S. senator to do its political bidding

#81

China is an extremely interesting study in geopolitics. Nations should never be able to do this, rise in prominence completely unobjected. You see examples of this throughout history, whenever one nation starts to expand its power and influence, another nation or group of nations tends to deploy power to check the rise. Accession of new geopolitical powers is therefore an extremely rare event, a complete failure of t…

There are several reasons for it, including your nuclear weapons practical consideration.

- The US allowed China into the WTO, urged by globalist corporations who thought it would be massively to their benefit. That was the spark that sent their economy skyrocketing. Their economy had been growing at a healthy clip, however immediately after joining the WTO it doubled in size in just five years from $1.4t to $2.8t. It is still widely believed, perhaps naively hoped for, by major US corporations and financial interests that China can be a growth opportunity for investment and trade. That keeps the criticism more subdued than it otherwise would have been (and that appears to be gradually fading, as it becomes obvious China is running an almost strictly mercantilist economic nationalism strategy).

- China repaid some of the trade imbalance, which provided them with vast piles of dollars, by buying up a small chunk of US debt. China recognized it as being in their self-interest, just as it was with Japan, providing some additional influence. That bought them a small amount of political cover.

- China has largely stayed out of several prominent spheres of US military dominace, including in the Americas, the Middle East and Europe. That may change of course, as China has begun pushing its military outwards. [1]

- The US has a slightly unusual liking of China, which goes back a century or more. The US protected China from being nuked by Russia in 1969 [2]. The US destroyed the Empire of Japan and fought side by side with the Chinese to push the Japanese out of mainland Asia. The US was primary in working with China to open its economy, including work done by politicians like Nixon / Kissinger, and US companies / investors. The US is among the few global powers of the last 500 years that didn't seek to invade, conquer or humiliate China, but instead traded massively with them and invested massively into them (despite the fact that they were hard Communists and the US Capitalist). There's some kind of kinship (despite the occasional adversarial tones) between the two nations, the US maybe sees some of itself in China's rise. On the economic side there was actually less hysteria in the US about China's rise to global power than there was with Japan during the 1970s and 1980s (with Japan actually overtaking the US GDP per capita figures by 1987), despite China's climb being far more dramatic.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/07/china-djibo...

[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/7720461...

Re: How China got a U.S. senator to do its political bidding

#82
post #74

What I thought was really funny was how the Clinton foundation lost pretty much all it's foreign funding in a matter of weeks after Hillary lost the election. Who knew that even Australia, both the premier privately AND the government bribed the US president ? I wonder what they pay for ... http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/au... Ukranian billionaires: (who, by the way definitely did not earn…

NY Post, Washington Examiner, The Daily Wire, and a blog written by someone whose bio starts out "An internationally renowned expert in the field of health and nutrition...". Perhaps you have sources that aren't part of an insane right-wing echo chamber? Oh wait, no, of course you don't, or you would have posted them. Must be some of that Deep State infecting the MSM (am I doing this "right")?

Okay, let's give a few more links ... let me know which one is sufficiently left wing (none I guess). Also, please state what exactly you're claiming ... there are plenty of links in here by organisations that certainly have a reputation for integrity so slant, sure, factually inaccurate, certainly not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/25/arts/design/an-earnest-bui...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2014-10-17/bill-clin...

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2001/mar/12/20010312-02...

http://www.greenroofs.com/projects/pview.php?id=190

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11...

https://www.npr.org/2017/03/01/517840118/arkansas-weighs-whe...

Re: How China got a U.S. senator to do its political bidding

#84

China is an extremely interesting study in geopolitics. Nations should never be able to do this, rise in prominence completely unobjected. You see examples of this throughout history, whenever one nation starts to expand its power and influence, another nation or group of nations tends to deploy power to check the rise. Accession of new geopolitical powers is therefore an extremely rare event, a complete failure of t…

Even without nuclear weapons, I'm pretty sure that the US has no stomach for a toe-to-toe all-out conventional war with China. We're not willing to accept the casualties just to "keep China in check".

Re: How China got a U.S. senator to do its political bidding

#85

China is an extremely interesting study in geopolitics. Nations should never be able to do this, rise in prominence completely unobjected. You see examples of this throughout history, whenever one nation starts to expand its power and influence, another nation or group of nations tends to deploy power to check the rise. Accession of new geopolitical powers is therefore an extremely rare event, a complete failure of t…

Even without nuclear weapons, I'm pretty sure that the US has no stomach for a toe-to-toe all-out conventional war with China. We're not willing to accept the casualties just to "keep China in check".

We don't really need an all-out conventional war with China in order to check its rise. We just need to make a sufficiently credible threat. Americans are more than willing to go to war in order to do this, we did it all throughout the Cold War, for instance, in order to check the USSR. That was only 50 years ago. This particular geopolitical dynamic goes clear back to the Middle Ages.

Why we are not threatening China at the moment is a complete mystery.

Re: How China got a U.S. senator to do its political bidding

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What particularly strikes me about this story is the highly selective concern. What about all the lobbying done by Israel and Saudi Arabia?

shhh... that’s antisemetic and islamophobic

No one considers criticizing Saudi Arabia to be Islamophobic, and no one considers criticizing Israel to be antisemitic.

There are Muslims and Jews who criticize respectively both of those countries policies. It's also somewhat difficult to compare Israel and Saudi Arabia in the same breath, since Saudi Arabia is actually a regime propped up by the US, while Israel is a very close US ally (for better or for worse) which has a mind of its own.

Re: How China got a U.S. senator to do its political bidding

#87

China is an extremely interesting study in geopolitics. Nations should never be able to do this, rise in prominence completely unobjected. You see examples of this throughout history, whenever one nation starts to expand its power and influence, another nation or group of nations tends to deploy power to check the rise. Accession of new geopolitical powers is therefore an extremely rare event, a complete failure of t…

There are several reasons for it, including your nuclear weapons practical consideration. - The US allowed China into the WTO, urged by globalist corporations who thought it would be massively to their benefit. That was the spark that sent their economy skyrocketing. Their economy had been growing at a healthy clip, however immediately after joining the WTO it doubled in size in just five years from $1.4t to $2.8t. I…

I don't think any of these are salient.

In the first place, politics is more often the driver of economics than the other way around. No way would American political leaders sacrifice the good of the nation for the good of individual corporations. To allow China to do this literally means they're sleeping at the wheel. Americans have always been fiercely America-first, up to and well beyond the point of being willing to go to war over it.

This is, quite literally, the one job that a lot of people in government have, to come up with foreign policy strategies and assess the situation and recommend policy to political leadership. Those people are still there, doing their jobs, assessing and recommending. Yet we still have not started pursuing an effective strategy for containing China. Why?

Your other theme, that Americans just somehow like China, doesn't really hold water either. Americans had a similar like for Russians, but that didn't stop us from fighting a decades-long proxy war with them.

American leaders just seem legitimately confused over the direction the nation should be going, allowing China to fill a leadership void. It almost seems like we're just tired of global hegemony.

Re: How China got a U.S. senator to do its political bidding

#88
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

shhh... that’s antisemetic and islamophobic

No one considers criticizing Saudi Arabia to be Islamophobic, and no one considers criticizing Israel to be antisemitic. There are Muslims and Jews who criticize respectively both of those countries policies. It's also somewhat difficult to compare Israel and Saudi Arabia in the same breath, since Saudi Arabia is actually a regime propped up by the US, while Israel is a very close US ally (for better or for worse) wh…

Tell that to the Anti-Defamation League.

Re: How China got a U.S. senator to do its political bidding

#89
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that the purpose of diplomats? "The main functions of diplomats are: representation and protection of the interests and nationals of the sending state; initiation and facilitation of strategic agreements; treaties and conventions; promotion of information; trade and commerce; technology" [1] Why are we permitting lobbyists to usurp this role? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomat

>Why are we permitting lobbyists to usurp this role? Why do we allow lobbying to exist at all? Because politicians make the laws, and lobbyists enrich them. If someone said "hey, would you like to have other people give you free gifts every day, or would you like to make that illegal?" - what is your response going to be? Lobbying will literally be the downfall of our democracy. Here's hoping other countries learn fr…

If you ever call you congress critter, that is considered lobbying, no? "Spamming" and abuse of all kinds are the price paid for a free society.

Re: How China got a U.S. senator to do its political bidding

#90

China is an extremely interesting study in geopolitics. Nations should never be able to do this, rise in prominence completely unobjected. You see examples of this throughout history, whenever one nation starts to expand its power and influence, another nation or group of nations tends to deploy power to check the rise. Accession of new geopolitical powers is therefore an extremely rare event, a complete failure of t…

I think it's because we (global powers) are more civilized these days. In this modern era it's harder (not impossible) to go to war when there isn't an egregious threat/harm present. The populous now needs to feel it's justified.

Civilized? Us? You must have America confused with some other global superpower, like, say, ancient Rome. We've been pursuing one or more wars more or less continuously since WW2. They don't feel like wars to us, because our economic heft is such that fighting a war on foreign soil is pocket change. We just don't call them wars until later, when the historians can finally control the narrative.
Post reply on HN