Analyzing Sino-American Relations of 1972

isn't it pretty obvious that the open door policy was for it's own good?

As someone who has lived in China and spent much time throughout asia, I can definitely say that China has always been and will continue to act only in its own interest, even if it is cleverly able to disguise it as goodwill. However, I think that this topic deserves more than a 2 paragraph beginning-to-end conclusion.

Anyone who has been involved with manufacturing, especially plastic injection mold-making and/or electronics has known for years that China is quickly draining our technological resources. In the last 3 or 4 years, up until the beginning of this year, there was not a week that would go by without another auction flyer showing the demise of yet another northeast machine shop landing in our mailbox. Many of our customers were going over to China to have their molds built, and you really couldn’t blame them, at least in a business sense, because it was much cheaper. I know of one mold that would have cost $50,000 to build over here, and the person got it for $1700. It was a rough job, but it worked. We couldn’t even come close to buying the steel for that much. What has effectively happened is that not only has the value of the products gone way down, the value of the skills that it took to produce them has gone down also. This means, and we are already seeing it; that less and less younger workers are taking up manufacturing as a trade which causes the pool of skilled people to get smaller and smaller over time. So I ask you, what happens over a longer period of time in terms of defense when a country loses its manufacturing base?

This last year has shown a ray of hope. It seems that some of the companies that were jumping on the China bandwagon have found out that the overall costs of doing business in China, especially on lower volume and products still in development, were not really as inexpensive as they thought they would be, so some of it has come back. But this sense of being busier could also be because so many others have gone out of business around us.

As Frank came into the office from out in the shop he exclaimed, “You know, I was putting a new porch floor down yesterday and I bought these nails that were supposed to hold really well. Wouldn’t you know that every nail I hit would bend over? Totally useless! You couldn’t get any of them in. Then I looked on the box and it said MADE IN CHINA.”

Anything made in China is a real sore spot in our business with all the outsourcing drying up much of the work lately.

“Yeah”, I joked back at him, “I bet you can’t even buy any nails made in the U.S.A. anymore.” (I always liked to egg him on.)

Frank sort of stopped, scratched his head and with a sudden look of horror and dismay said, “You mean to tell me I’m going to have to have Chinese nails in my coffin?!?”

I laughed and nodded my head. It was only a few minutes later I realized the full and sad irony of that statement.

------

(I want to make sure it is clear that I certainly don’t have anything against the actual Chinese people, country or culture. Any criticism perceived is really directed at the leaders of the U.S.)

Great stuff guys! In one false swoop you nailed our new villain, (after all we got to have a villain), and you also got a punch in for capitalistic elitism, i.e. only America can puck the world.

Here is the skinny of the scoop. China is kicking our ass, and at the same time transferring as much American dollars over to Euros without making the market crash. As far as enemies goes, China, like Iran cannot possibly compete with our massive arsenal, period. In other words, they are going to win, not in the field, but on the trading floor.

Lastly, and I hate to bring this up as an unabashed tree hugger, but our earth is crapping out on us, and we need to come up with a way to feed as many people as possible in the coming years. This is in no way finger pointing. I know that the jury is out on whom or what is causing global warming, and at this point, it really doesn’t matter. Never the less, the earth is getting warmer. America needs to be focused on developing farming methods that will address this fact. For the gentle reader, please review the “little Ice Age” during the 17th century. Read how our ancestors developed methods of farming that helped lead humanity through this little glitch in our climate.

Other than that, have a great holiday, and as the Zen guys say, “everything is just as it is”. What ever that means. Peace. Plumbbob.

Matt, did you just post your Sosh paper? Did you put on a funny costume and run it over to Omninerd's virtual HQs just minutes before the deadline?

Sorry, I saw the words "hegemonic stability theory" and cracked up.

You know, I majored in history. I have about 12 term papers (plus a 30-page thesis) that I could post here. Then your 10 NR would be MINE!

I am an American (a white boy from Ohio) who speaks mandarin, travels and works in China for 2 months out of the year (thus having the opportunity to speak to many different Chinese of all sorts of background) and has been doing so for the past decade. Your article takes an almost paranoid view on the situation... seriously, it was laughable!

Consider this line from the author's comment, "Ultimately, I found that despite its perception as a gesture of good faith, the decision was part of a larger plan to carefully and patiently mete out limited concessions for greater, national rewards." "Part of a larger plan..." No shit sherlock, what nation does something so monumental and has nothing more in mind that being buddies? "Carefully and patiently..." I would hope so! "...mete out limited concessions for greater, national rewards." Of course China is looking after its own interests! What else should they do? Beg the all-mighty U.S. to allow them the "1 for the price of 4" special and a reach around?

You also seem to confuse the period under Mao Zedong, after "ping-pong diplomacy" began, with current policy. While there are similarities, there are many (many,many,etc) more differences. Here are a few more faux intellectual gems from your (apparently undergraduate) student paper:

"United States refused to recognize the P.R.C. as the legitimate governing body of China." ...and this caused tension. Yep. Because the P.R.C. WAS the legitimate governing body and the U.S. was simply not pleased with this. Tension exacerbated by... the U.S.

"In 1954, Premiere Mao Tse-tung referred to America as the "leader of the forces of global imperialism ... the most dangerous enemy of the people of the world." Well, given Vietnam, Iraq and all of our other fubared involvements would he not be at least partly correct? Especially from a non-American perspective?

"...define China's worldview break down to its cultural ethnocentrism, resentment to foreign imperialism, Marxist-Leninist ideology, and focus on national security and self-interest". Cultural ethnocentrism? Sadly, there is some truth to this (but it is not beyond hope at this point nor is it all pervasive). "resentment to foreign imperialism" *gasp* how dare they resent our taking over everything that is not defended by people that can defeat us. "Marxist-Leninist ideology," Err... *ring, ring* It's 35 years ago calling, they want their ideology back. "focus on national security and self-interest" Ack! How DARE they! They should focus on national vulnerability and OUR self-interest... sneaky bastards.

Well, I could go on forever but it is like stomping on worms after a rain, so easy and kind of mean, so I'll finish up. Your writing reads like a college kid's first "real" paper. I mean, you are citing the American Heritage College Dictionary for crying out loud. You don't do research out of dictionaries! You also cite "The Coming Conflict with America", by Richard Bernstein... Did you actually read the whole book? I have and it is a neo-con, wet-dream, fantasy of epic proportions. Kind of a worst possible case scenario that assumes the absolute most negative and extreme views of China are gospel truth with sprinkles on top.

Hey, on the bright side, your bibliography is really long! Nice use of Ibid.