What's new

Diplomat says China would assume world leadership if needed

ahojunk

RETIRED INTL MOD
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
5,118
Reaction score
6
Country
Australia
Location
Australia
Ha ha. China says she is not interested to be the world leader, but if the rest insists she won't mind.
Self proclaimed leadership is useless. Only leadership conferred by the others is respected and valued.


========

| Mon Jan 23, 2017 | 4:24am EST | Reuters
Diplomat says China would assume world leadership if needed

download (15).jpg

A Chinese flag is seen near a construction site in Beijing's central business area, China, January 17, 2017. REUTERS/Jason Lee


China does not want world leadership but could be forced to assume that role if others step back from that position, a senior Chinese diplomat said on Monday, after U.S. President Donald Trump pledged to put "America first" in his first speech.

Zhang Jun, director general of the Chinese Foreign Ministry's international economics department, made the comments during a briefing with foreign journalists to discuss President Xi Jinping's visit to Switzerland last week.

Topping the bill at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Xi portrayed China as the leader of a globalized world where only international cooperation could solve the big problems.

Speaking days before Trump assumed the presidency, Xi also urged countries to resist isolationism, signaling Beijing's desire to play a bigger role on the global stage.

Elaborating on that theme, Zhang said China had no intention of seeking global leadership.

"If anyone were to say China is playing a leadership role in the world I would say it's not China rushing to the front but rather the front runners have stepped back leaving the place to China," Zhang said.

"If China is required to play that leadership role then China will assume its responsibilities," he added.

At his inauguration on Friday, Trump struck a nationalist and populist tone, pledging to end what he called an "American carnage" of rusted factories and crime.

China is the world's second-largest economy and others also rely on it for their economic growth, Zhang said.

"We still hope that the United States and other Western economies can continue to make an even bigger contribution to the world economic recovery. We've heard Trump announce that the United States will achieve four percent growth and we're very happy about that," he added.

While Trump said American workers have been devastated by the outsourcing of jobs abroad, he did not mention China by name in his inaugural speech. However, he has threatened to put punitive tariffs on imports of Chinese goods.

Zhang said he thought Trump would not be able to achieve his economic growth goals if he was also fighting trade wars.

"A trade war or an exchange rate war won't be advantageous to any country," Zhang added.

Separately, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said Xi had sent a congratulatory message to Trump upon his assumption of office, but gave no other details.


(Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Additional reporting by Christian Shepherd; Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore)


********

China says, "nah, we are not interested in being the world leader. But if you insists, we will take the responsibility."

Realistically, for the rest of the world, we don't have much choice, do we?
Bearing in mind that China is responsible for 30% of the world's economic growth.

.
 
Trump wants to raise protectionist measures to create jobs in the US. Protectionist measures work, we all know that.

Dunno why the Chinese think the US will give away their pole position just because there will be new trade rules.
 
Trump wants to raise protectionist measures to create jobs in the US. Protectionist measures work, we all know that.

Dunno why the Chinese think the US will give away their pole position just because there will be new trade rules.
Where you learn economics? Protectionism means more jobs for US? :lol:
 
Where you learn economics? Protectionism means more jobs for US? :lol:

Yes. It has worked very well for China obviously.

Certain types of protectionism work, it's not a blanket.

China is heavily protectionist. So there is no quid pro quo here. American companies are not allowed to participate or compete against Chinese companies. You are already aware of how non-Chinese companies cannot survive in China. Then you also know about the flimsy Chinese laws when it comes to IPR.

So why should America give American jobs to the Chinese? This has been the argument all along.
 
Yes. It has worked very well for China obviously.

China is heavily protectionist. So there is no quid pro quo here. American companies are not allowed to participate or compete against Chinese companies. You are already aware of how non-Chinese companies cannot survive in China. Then you also know about the flimsy Chinese laws when it comes to IPR.

So why should America give American jobs to the Chinese? This has been the argument all along.

It is not important. The point is, if we use wrestling or Judo as the example, The American is in out of balance state at the moment, and China want to throw it down with this diplomatic move. Success or not is a different matter. Maybe the American still has some hidden technique to change the situation; but, just like I said before, it is entirely a different matter.
 
China is heavily protectionist. So there is no quid pro quo here. American companies are not allowed to participate or compete against Chinese companies. You are already aware of how non-Chinese companies cannot survive in China. Then you also know about the flimsy Chinese laws when it comes to IPR.

So why should America give American jobs to the Chinese? This has been the argument all along.

Why would they want to give US jobs to the Indians? Same thing. If it makes financially more sense, they will invest in India rather than Vietnam. No sentimentality here.

As for protectionism, in their development stages, every country utilized protectionist measures. US protected its oil industry from the 30s up until 60s as it was late to join the European in the appropriation of Middle East oil.

China protects its nascent industries in which others enjoy several decades of early comer's advantages.

It is only fair for developing countries to protect industries. Same happened with Korea, Japan and China's Taiwan in our early industrialization. It is not for nothing that we are called developmentalist state. We protect, guide, publish 5-year plans, determine key industries, protect key industries.

We do all that and we are happy about the outcome.

I am pragmatically happy India has not adopted this policy (if it ever had any meaningful industry, to begin with, but that's another issue).

Where you learn economics? Protectionism means more jobs for US? :lol:

In fact, US is quite protectionist. They heavily subsidize their agriculture, creating unfair competitive power.

China says, "nah, we are not interested in being the world leader. But if you insists, we will take the responsibility."

Realistically, for the rest of the world, we don't have much choice, do we?
Bearing in mind that China is responsible for 30% of the world's economic growth.

The world really needs to sign up petitions and line up in front of 中南海 for that to happen. I guess China is more than happy to leave the superpower title to India, or other more interested parties.
 
Why would they want to give US jobs to the Indians? Same thing. If it makes financially more sense, they will invest in India rather than Vietnam. No sentimentality here.

There is a good chance India may lose jobs as well.

In fact, US is quite protectionist. They heavily subsidize their agriculture, creating unfair competitive power.

Now it's in the process of spreading to other industries. Trump cancelled TTP negotiations yesterday.

I guess China is more than happy to leave the superpower title India, or other more interested parties.

No chance. China is yearning for this. In fact, China is doing its hardest to not convert G2 into a G3 because of US pressure.

It is not important. The point is, if we use wrestling or Judo as the example, The American is in out of balance state at the moment, and China want to throw it down with this diplomatic move. Success or not is a different matter. Maybe the American still has some hidden technique to change the situation; but, just like I said before, it is entirely a different matter.

No chance. China is no different from a WW2 America. Still a long way to go before there is global diplomatic parity between the US and China. In fact, China is significantly weaker than the Soviet Union was in 1980.
 
No Matter What Trump Says, Your Gadgets Will Still Be Made in China
 
Now it's in the process of spreading to other industries. Trump cancelled TTP negotiations yesterday.

TPP was destined to be dead. What I am more eager is to listen the TTIP's death hymn.

I just wish Trump to kill the TTIP, making the OBOR the only sheriff in town.

China is yearning for this. In fact, China is doing its hardest to not convert G2 into a G3 because of US pressure.

Wrong as usual.
 
No chance. China is no different from a WW2 America. Still a long way to go before there is global diplomatic parity between the US and China. In fact, China is significantly weaker than the Soviet Union was in 1980.

US is the most influential. When it comes to soft power, India is ahead of China. I do not think China believes in soft power. For China, soft power is the effect, not the cause. For India, soft power is the cause, development is the effect. Hence, Indian level of development.
 
So why should America give American jobs to the Chinese?

Why would they want to give US jobs to the Indians? Same thing. If it makes financially more sense, they will invest in India rather than Vietnam. No sentimentality here.
.
There is no free lunch. American corporations didn't give the jobs to China.
It's just that China can produce a decent product at a very good price.
Guess what, it increases the profits of American corporations.
If India can produce the same product at a cheaper price, the corporations will move their factories to India in a heartbeat.
TBH, that's not likely as Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia are ahead in the queue.
 
There is a very interesting article to read on the difference between China as global power and the USA published in today online by the ex-foreign minister of Singapore Trump Xi and Shaping US China relations. He makes argument that Chinese historically would exercise their power in a very different fashion to the USa
 
.
There is no free lunch. American corporations didn't give the jobs to China.
It's just that China can produce a decent product at a very good price.
Guess what, it increases the profits of American corporations.
If India can produce the same product at a cheaper price, the corporations will move their factories to India in a heartbeat.
TBH, that's not likely as Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia are ahead in the queue.

Besides, the US investment is not really that big. Cumulative investment in China (1990-2015) was about 260 billion USD.

"Foreign" investment in China was not really that foreign; overwhelming amount of it coming from Greater China region, and the northern neighbors, Japan and Korea.

For example, in 2012:

upload_2017-1-24_14-30-5.png


So, it is hard to understand why people overemphasize US investment.

Besides, cumulative Chinese investment in the US has already surpassed 70 billion USD, and this is from 2011 onwards.
 
Back
Top Bottom