May 22, 2019 – 7:36 am


Our costs will always be there. So readers who can donate towards the cost of the site, please open a Skrill account. Readers who wish to contribute to BigO will now have to use Skrill (click here). We are no longer able to use PayPal to receive donations. Register an account at Skrill. To make a payment, use this e-mail address as recipient’s e-mail address in Skrill: mail2[at] Looking forward to hearing from you.

+ + + + +

To reduce spamming, the BigO website is going through Cloudflare. What it does is scan your browser to ensure the visitor is not a spam. Do not be alarmed as this usually takes only a few seconds. Email us if you still have difficulty accessing the BigO site; or playing or downloading the tracks. If you know a better way of reducing spam, do let us know.

+ + + + +

If you don’t understand what’s going on it’s because your nation-building press has fed you manure and kept you in the dark. The job of journalists is to turn on the light. By Moon Of Alabama.

The dwindling empires’ main propaganda outlet, the New York Times, continues its anti-China campaign. It is now blaming China’s president for the failure of trade negotiations with the United States.

How Xi’s Last-Minute Switch on US-China Trade Deal Upended It:

China’s leader, Xi Jinping, seemed confident three weeks ago that a yearlong trade war with the United States could soon subside, handing him a potent political victory.

He even made a speech saying China would protect intellectual property, encourage foreign investment, and buy more goods and services from abroad - all changes the United States had been demanding as the countries tried to negotiate a deal.

But just a week after that speech, Chinese negotiators sent the Americans a substantially rewritten draft agreement, prompting President Trump to accuse Beijing of reneging on terms that had been settled.

As typical for US propaganda, the piece goes on to personifying the decision China made when confronted with overreaching US demands. It is Xi personally, says the Times, who is to blame:

In China’s top-down political system, where President Xi has amassed formidable power… it is clear that Mr Xi misjudged…

Now Mr Xi risks being backed into a corner…

For Mr Xi, such a move could be seen…

Mr Xi’s frenetic schedule and highly centralized style of policymaking…

“No doubt Xi has tightened the overall policy atmosphere…”

US propaganda is always pointing to one person that solely causes everything and therefore deserves all the hate. It once was Saddam, Saddam, Saddam. Then Ghadaffi, Ghadaffi, Ghadaffi, Assad, Assad, Assad, Putin, Putin, Putin. Now it is Xi, Xi, Xi.

In the real word hardly any person leading a state has as much power as such villainizing propaganda tries to make one believe. Countries have interests that define their policies through processes that are often incomprehensible to the cursorily observer. Whatever face is at the top is only representing the layers below. It should be the task of the press to untangle and explain the processes instead of demonizing their representing face.

So what really happened?

The US started a trade war with China by suddenly putting up high tariffs on Chinese products. China countered with tariffs on US products, but was ready to negotiate a fair deal. The negotiations about an agreement were held in English in the United States. The US provided a written draft.

When that draft reached China and was translated to Chinese the relevant party and government institutions were aghast. The US demanded that China changes several of its domestics laws. It essentially demanded a complete change of China’s trade policies and, most infuriating, was unwilling to go back to the old tariff rates, even if China would comply. It wasn’t Xi who rejected the uneven deal, it was the whole Chinese government.

US propaganda is always pointing to one person that solely causes everything and therefore deserves all the hate. It once was Saddam, Saddam, Saddam. Then Ghadaffi, Ghadaffi, Ghadaffi, Assad, Assad, Assad, Putin, Putin, Putin. Now it is Xi, Xi, Xi.

The draft agreement was corrected and sent back to the United States. Trump responded to China’s unwillingness to his capitulation demand by further increasing tariffs and by threatening to increase them even more. The trade war will escalate from here and metastasize in other relations.

Deep into the NYT piece, where the propaganda weakens and journalism sneaks in, we can learn all of this:

Several sources said the changes were discussed with other Communist Party leaders, which brought into focus worries that the proposed deal could make Mr Xi and the party look as if they were bowing to pressure…

Mr Xi may have belatedly concluded that changes to Chinese laws demanded by the United States would be an affront to national honor. Some said Mr Xi might have felt he had to act after the clauses drew criticism from party leaders who had not been briefed earlier…

[T]he administration sought changes to cybersecurity laws that China’s national security establishment saw as interference.

These changes would require authorization from China’s national legislature.

“These conditions that the Americans raised for an agreement, at least from the political point of view, are extremely difficult to accept,” said Cui Liru, a former president of China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, a prominent state research group. “It is almost asking the change of China’s political system”…

“It is very hard to think China will cave in or surrender to these pressures,” said Wang Yong, the director of the Center for International Political Economy at Peking University. “Public opinion definitely matters.”

So it is not Xi, Xi, Xi. China is not a “top-down political system” and Xi has not “amassed formidable power”. China’s president Xi is not an absolute king. It isn’t he who can make such far-reaching decisions. There is the party, the security establishment and the government apparatus. There are industry interests that need to be taken care of. There is last not least the national public opinion the system has to take into account.

China does not want a trade war with the United States. But, unlike Trump and the NYT assume, it is likely China that will lose less from it than the US will.

As Ambassador Chas Freeman lays out at length, Trump’s (anti-)China policy has no strategy. It is one of chaos and will have echoes in many other fields:

President Trump’s trade war with China has quickly metastasized into every other domain of Sino-American relations. Washington is now trying to dismantle China’s interdependence with the American economy, curb its role in global governance, counter its foreign investments, cripple its companies, block its technological advance, punish its many deviations from liberal ideology, contest its borders, map its defenses, and sustain the ability to penetrate those defenses at will.

The message of hostility to China these efforts send is consistent and apparently comprehensive. Most Chinese believe it reflects an integrated US view or strategy. It does not.

There is no longer an orderly policy process in Washington to coordinate, moderate, or control policy formulation or implementation. Instead, a populist president has effectively declared open season on China.

Currently each and every arm of US policy is beating up China in any field it can. This hostility will soon become irreversible. China will response in kind and asymmetrically. It now restarts to buy oil from Iran. Ambassador Freeman sees no way how the US could win the game.

He Tingbo, president of HiSilicon, said in an internal letter to staff that Huawei has been preparing for a scenario of survival in extreme conditions when all the advanced chips and technology from the United States become unobtainable. “Today, a historic choice has to be made. Our backup plan will be put into official use.”

China has long prepared for this conflict. Consider Trump’s recent move against the Chinese manufacturer Huawei:

The White House issued an executive order Wednesday apparently aimed at banning Huawei’s equipment from US telecom networks and information infrastructure. It then announced a more potent and immediate sanction that subjects the Chinese company to strict export controls.

The order took effect Thursday and requires US government approval for all purchases of US microchips, software and other components globally by Huawei and 68 affiliated businesses. Huawei says that amounted to $11 billion in goods last year.

Huawei currently uses US made chips in many of its smartphones and networking products. But it has long expected the US move and diligently prepared for it:

Huawei’s chipset subsidiary HiSilicon said on Friday it will use backup chips it has independently developed for years to cope with the ban from the United States.

He Tingbo, president of HiSilicon, said in an internal letter to staff that Huawei has been preparing for a scenario of survival in extreme conditions when all the advanced chips and technology from the United States become unobtainable…

“Today, a historic choice has to be made. Our backup plan will be put into official use,” according to the letter.

Soon US chip companies will have lost all their sales to the second largest smartphone producer of the world. That loss will not be just temporarily, it will become permanent. At the same time Trump’s tariffs on products from China will further hurt the US economy. The voters already fear that:

By an 11-point margin, voters think increased tariffs on Chinese imports will do more to hurt the economy than help it.

The voters’ hunch will soon be confirmed as Walmart and others announce that they will have to increase their prices. Economists also expect that the US consumers will feel significant pain:

“[T]he cost to an American family of three would be about $2,200 if Trump’s full package of 25 per cent tariffs on $500 billion of merchandise imports from China is implemented.

“In the case of the latest 15 per cent additional tariffs on $200 billion, from 10 per cent to 25 per cent, that go into effect by the end of May… the direct cost is $30 billion and the likely indirect cost, through higher US producer prices, will be another $30 billion. Together, that’s $60 billion… about $550 per family.” China will absorb “no more than 5 per cent” of the tariffs.

Few other countries will join Trump’s anti-China campaign. It will further isolate the United States. That is quite an achievement for the MAGA (Make America Great Again) man.

Some aspects of China’s trade behavior can and should be criticized. But overall China sticks to the rules of the game, while the US is now breaking these. It was not China that moved US factories to its country. US managers did that because the US economic system is based on greed and not on the welfare of its citizens.

There are much better ways to get China to change its trade behavior than by bullying and ever increasing tariffs and sanctions. Ambassador Freeman’s recommendable essay provides some of these.

Note: This article was originally published by “Moon Of Alabama” (May 17, 2019). It was also posted at Information Clearing House.

+ + + + +


  2. Fuck the Chinese.

    A nation full of con artists and scammers.

    By Cao Nima on May 23, 2019

  3. In the second last paragraph of the article the author admits, “Some aspects of China’s trade behavior can and should be criticized.” That is the first mention that China might possibly bear any responsibility (however slight) for trade friction. However, no further details are proffered.

    I won’t try to attribute blame for the complex trade dispute, but I will point out the extreme shallowness of this article. Nothing is learned by reading this except that the author has great disdain for the US administration and he desperately wants to convince readers that Xi is not an emperor.

    The author’s only real source of support for his position is the dubious commentary of dictatorship apologist and embittered ex-diplomat Chas Freeman. This is the same man who, for example, likes to (seriously) compare the situation of Tibet in China with Wales in the UK.

    I have big problems with both regimes involved in this messy trade dispute. Although, not evident in this article, there are a lot of grey areas. However, currently only one of these nations is building a new gulag archipelago for minorities in its western colonies. Only one of these nations censors open discussions of its policies. Personally, unlike Chas, I’m not eager to implicitly support extreme human rights violations by increasing the legitimacy of the communist party through a policy of blanket cooperation with their mercantilist trade policies.

    By disagree with moon on Jun 4, 2019

Post a Comment