"It was a big mistake for the United States to agree to China's accession to the WTO. ”
In 2021, Mearsheimer, an expert on international issues for Jewish Americans, sharply pointed out this point in a long article written in 2021. The implication is that China's rejuvenation and strength seem to be a handout and a gift from the United States.
In addition to criticism, he also found out two "sinners," namely former US President George H.W. Bush and Clinton.
Mearsheimer believes that the two men are to blame for China's entry into the WTO and its rapid rise.
The former Bush Sr. made an "unfortunate start" by granting China the most-favored-nation status in trade for the first time, and the latter Clinton made an irreparable mistake by trying his best to mediate on the issue of China's accession to the WTO.
Mearsheimer's words are conclusive. In the past few years, at different times in the United States, there have been endless remarks in the United States about "regretting allowing China to join the WTO," and there are various reasons.
So, is it really a strategic mistake by Clinton to allow China to join the WTO, as Mearsheimer said?
How much bitterness has the mainland experienced in order to join the WTO?
After World War II, the United States changed its international trade policy
In fact, the international trade of the United States has gone through a significant downhill period.
About what is meant by "international trade". The American scholar Benjamin Cohen described it this way: "The so-called international trade is a general term for the economic behavior of a country trying to influence the external economic environment. ”
The change in international trade strategy can reflect the different offensive and defensive forms of the country's economy at the current stage.
Since the mid-60s, many old developed countries, such as Britain and France, have been rebuilt, and new industrial countries have also begun to rise, such as Germany and Japan. In the increasingly fierce competition for the international market, the U.S. manufacturing industry is gradually showing weakness.
In just 10 years, Japan's annual productivity growth has reached a staggering 14.2 percent, while Europe's France, Germany, and Italy have also achieved annual growth rates of 6.6 percent, 5.3 percent, and 5.1 percent, respectively. By comparison, the U.S. is growing at a measly 2.1 percent a year.
It's even less than the 3.6% of the old empire Britain that is no longer glorious.
What's even more fatal is that the increase in unit labor costs in the United States has continued to soar, reaching a staggering 3.9%.
On the other hand, with an incremental labor cost of 0.8%, Japan has occupied the market in automobiles, ships, steel and white goods. In just 10 years, Japan's ship launch tonnage accounted for 50% of the world's total ship growth.
Japan's automotive industry has also taken off, from producing only 3% of the world's total production in 1960 to becoming one of the world's largest auto exporters with a 23% international market share by 1984. In the steel manufacturing industry, which supports industrial development, Japan is gradually catching up with the United States. In 1980, Japan surpassed the United States' 101 million tons of crude steel production for the first time with 111 million tons.
The rapid development of Japan's economy and trade has made the United States anxious and red-eyed.
At this time, the United States, which is at a disadvantage, will undoubtedly seek its own death if it adopts the principle of primitive free trade. Simply raising tariffs, or antidumping and countervailing measures, will not save the United States from declining trade in domestic and foreign markets.
Coupled with the constraints of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the United States urgently needs a new rule of the game to circumvent the control of the multilateral trading system and flexibly use non-tariff barriers to protect trade, that is, fair trade.
On the surface, fair trade is a form of trade based on free trade, with more emphasis on fairness and reciprocity, and advocates further bilateral opening up to achieve true "liberalization" of trade.
But according to the consistent urine nature of the United States, just listen to this statement, and it is simply one thing to say, but in fact it is another thing.
Sure enough, in 1988, the Reagan administration introduced the Comprehensive Trade and Competition Act, which had strong protectionist overtones, including the "Super 301 Act" for trade with other countries, in which Japan was targeted.
With the in-depth development of the so-called "fair trade", new trade barriers represented by monopoly methods in production links such as "labor standards" and "environmental policies" have emerged.
Coincidentally, at the end of the 80s and 90s of the last century, the mainland actively engaged in negotiations on "resumption of GATT" and "accession to the WTO" was a transitional period in which the US-led international trade policy was transformed from "free trade" to "fair trade." However, Clinton suddenly jumped out and actively helped the mainland join the WTO, naturally not out of consideration for win-win cooperation, but out of his own petty calculations.
A small abacus of capital
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, as the largest banner of the socialist camp in the world, the fall of the Soviet Union made a number of socialist countries, including China, begin to think deeply about "where to go in the future".
In 1992, Comrade Deng Xiaoping made a speech during his inspection of the southern part of the country, in which he defined the goal of the mainland's future reform and opening up, as well as the basic line for carrying out modernization under a new system with socialist characteristics, which is different from the traditional political perspective.
Since then, it is needless to say that the mainland has continued to deepen its reform and opening up.
On the other hand, in 1993, when Clinton was officially inaugurated as the new president of the United States, he was still cautious about China.
In order to maintain the inertia of his political attitude, Clinton quickly issued a question on the "human rights" issue on the mainland after taking office. Affected by the political and military inertia of the United States in the Pacific region, the situation in the Taiwan Strait also showed a tense state for a time.
However, the United States is still the United States of capital, and China's economic system reform and opening up trend have attracted big capitalists to covet China's huge consumer market and cheap basic labor.
The US chaebols, represented by Wall Street capital, have begun to spend a lot of money to dredge up political relations and put pressure on Clinton and his administration through congressmen and other channels in order to ease the tense relations with China.
Under the power of money, in 1994, the Clinton administration decided to extend China's most-favored-nation status for trade.
In order to convince the opposition voices in Congress, Clinton did not hesitate to draw a big pie: "Once (China) joins the WTO, the United States will easily gain access to China's huge market." ”
In 1997, China embarked on a state visit to the United States, and it was during this visit that China and the United States reached a "constructive strategic cooperative partnership geared to the 21st century."
On the surface, it seems that the relationship between China and the United States is close enough, and China's accession to the WTO seems to be a certainty.
At this time, however, both China and the United States knew very well that if China wanted to join the WTO, it would have to pass a series of tests, which would not only be political, but also economic and financial.
The return of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 1997 was undoubtedly a perfect answer sheet handed over by the People's Republic of China. This incident proves the stability and inclusiveness of China's political system, and also endorses the safety of foreign capital in China's economic activities.
Another test was the Asian financial crisis in 1998, which began in 1997 in Southeast Asian countries, which swept through Asian countries in a short period of time and developed into a huge and ferocious financial tsunami.
Whether it is Thailand, the birthplace of the crisis, Malaysia and Indonesia in Southeast Asia, and even South Korea in East Asia, it has been affected. Among them, the Thai stock market plummeted by 48%, the Thai baht fell by 43%, the Indonesian stock market fell by 81%, the Indonesian rupah fell by 74%, and even the South Korean stock market and currency lost 32% and 48%.
The Hong Kong stock market, which has just returned to the motherland, has been blocked by international capital, and the Hong Kong dollar and the regional property market are also in jeopardy. At the critical moment, the Hong Kong SAR government had no choice but to intervene, and its confidence was precisely backed by the mainland's $140 billion capital reserves.
If it is said that spending $100 billion to save Hong Kong shows the mainland's rich family foundation and determination to win, then the mainland's policy of withstanding financial pressure and ensuring monetary stability undoubtedly shows the mainland's long-term vision and confidence in its own economy.
The successive outstanding performances have also made the big American capital see the unlimited potential of the mainland's economic development. Therefore, under the Clinton administration's statement, the mainland first signed a "WTO accession" agreement with the United States in 1999 and formally joined the WTO in 2001.
It cannot be said that the Americans did not take into account the day when China became strong when they actively promoted China's accession to the WTO.
It can only be said that in the face of such a newly opened consumer market, which has the world's largest population base, and a sufficiently large source of low-cost labor supply, I am afraid that no capitalist can exercise restraint.
China's metamorphosis
In the more than 20 years since China's accession to the WTO, both the United States and the capital behind the United States have received unimaginably rich benefits in China, and even for a long time after China's accession to the WTO, China has been an out-and-out world factory in the eyes of the developed countries.
As for the United States, which once unified China's accession to the WTO, China's help is not just talking.
In 2007, the subprime mortgage crisis erupted in the United States, which turned into a global financial crisis in 2008.
The solution to the root cause of this crisis is undoubtedly to spend huge sums of money on US Treasury bonds to help it survive the economic crisis first and ease the impact on the entire world economy. Out of consideration for its responsibility to the world economy, the mainland eventually bought 4 trillion dollars worth of US Treasury bonds.
However, in the following decade, unlike China, which has actively established its own industrial system, the "hollowing out" of the domestic economy in the United States has become more and more serious, and financial capital has been busy harvesting hot money around the world, resulting in the weaker and weaker development of the real economy in the United States.
Today's China has become the leader in holding high the banner of free trade in the world, and the United States suddenly finds itself out of control in terms of trade autonomy, and it is precisely for this reason that the United States is afraid of China's rise.
And Clinton, who made American capital quick money for more than ten years because of a decision, seems to have become a "sinner."
epilogue
In the final analysis, it is not only the loss of control over trade that the United States is angry about, after all, when free trade was not playable, the United States can also make a lot of money by turning it into "fair trade";
And it's not just the rise of China, because before China, Japan and Europe also threatened the trade position of the United States.
What the United States really cannot let go of is that the United States has lost the ability to change the rules of the game without authorization when it is unfavorable. The lack of influence will inevitably be related to the world hegemonic system that combines the US dollar and the military.
The so-called clamor about the "China threat theory" is the best embodiment of the decline of US hegemony. Because of the inefficient political and economic system of the United States, it is no longer able to revise and adjust the rules of the game in a timely manner in response to the rapid rise of China.
Resources
Great Power Game, International Order and Mearsheimer's Historical Logic - Liu Debin
20 Years of WTO Accession: Review and Reflection on the Integration of China's Trade System into the Global Trade System-Zhang Lijuan
"Discussion on China's WTO Accession and Twenty Years of Circulation Opening-Cui Guangye"
China's Role in the WTO - Li Gang