October 31, 1989
excerpt from the "Los Angeles Times"
Nixon" "U.S.-China relations should be based on a recognition of shared interests - not shared values."
Something to think about when you then look at what unfolded in the ensuing years when factories in America were shuttered, jobs lost, communities decimated as factories were opened in China where the same things made in America could now be made in China, minus the costs and worries of doing business in America:
unions, worker's compensation, worker safety, environmental safeguards
going around all of this WITH the assistance and facilitation of the move by our own government, to the detriment of smaller companies who couldn't or wouldn't make that move.
Was Nixon's statement as a matter of American foreign policy only applicable to U.S.-China relations? For example: why sanctions on South Africa for their policy of apartheid? How can we have separate strands of foreign policy? Shouldn't our foreign policy be coherent, across-the-board the same towards all, based on OUR values and OUR interests? "Shared interests, not shared values" seems to me to lead us down a road where THEIR interests, China's, dominate as we would become weaker.
I guess the optimistic viewpoint was that with all that manufacturing and commercial development, China would come around to our set of values . . . but if they are operating actually as a fascist government, where the government holds total control, wouldn't this be like doing business with Nazi Germany? I think China is actually a fascist totalitarian set-up as it stands now . . . "communist?" . . . eh, not so much (just don't talk about it).
October 31, 2019
excerpt from the "Los Angeles Times"
excerpt from the "South China Morning Post" (scmp.com)
excerpt from the "Los Angeles Times"
Nixon" "U.S.-China relations should be based on a recognition of shared interests - not shared values."
Something to think about when you then look at what unfolded in the ensuing years when factories in America were shuttered, jobs lost, communities decimated as factories were opened in China where the same things made in America could now be made in China, minus the costs and worries of doing business in America:
unions, worker's compensation, worker safety, environmental safeguards
going around all of this WITH the assistance and facilitation of the move by our own government, to the detriment of smaller companies who couldn't or wouldn't make that move.
Was Nixon's statement as a matter of American foreign policy only applicable to U.S.-China relations? For example: why sanctions on South Africa for their policy of apartheid? How can we have separate strands of foreign policy? Shouldn't our foreign policy be coherent, across-the-board the same towards all, based on OUR values and OUR interests? "Shared interests, not shared values" seems to me to lead us down a road where THEIR interests, China's, dominate as we would become weaker.
I guess the optimistic viewpoint was that with all that manufacturing and commercial development, China would come around to our set of values . . . but if they are operating actually as a fascist government, where the government holds total control, wouldn't this be like doing business with Nazi Germany? I think China is actually a fascist totalitarian set-up as it stands now . . . "communist?" . . . eh, not so much (just don't talk about it).
October 31, 2019
excerpt from the "South China Morning Post" (scmp.com)
Protesters block major thoroughfares in Central financial district as office workers take to streets.
8 minutes ago
Comments
Post a Comment