"Trade war with China." That's the jist of some headlines I have read today. This, of course, is in response to President Obama enacting a 35% anti-dumping tariff on China recently. Although I'm not sure if China will invetiably implode because it will push its economy, people, and environment beyond its threshold, what I can predict with fair certainty is that China will, at least for a decade, be a major player in international politics. Many predict that it will increase its international influence, and even maybe surpass the United States as a world power, G-d forbid. Either way, China is not going away anytime soon. Why anger a giant that is getting bigger every day? This is not a concession towards appeasing to an authoritarian state. It is, however, warning of a degree of prudence that we should show within our economic relations. Globalization has caused economic interdependence amongst nations. The interdependence is so much intertwined than it was during the Smoot-Hawley tariff in the 1930s. When other countries have economic downfalls, yes, we feel it. It happened in 1997 when the Four Asian Tigers took an economic tummult. It was a short-term recession for America, but it was still felt. It's amazing that the two worst economic disasters in the past century (the Great Depression and now) have two things in common: they originated from the U.S., and they were both caused by protectionism. Does Obama need to embody the worst of ex-Presidents Hoover and FDR? Does he think he's going to score political points by winning back some pro-protectionist factory workers because they're starting to develop a negative opinion about him and this health care bill? Obama already got off to a bad start when Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner accused China of manipulating its currency. Whether or not this will start an outright trade war with Beijing, it's not wise for America to enact protectionism that will surely agitate the country whose economy is so intertwined with ours that most "American" products say Made in China.
Speaking of agitating allies, Obama is doing this to Israel, as well. Since when is it wise to chastize and humiliate your longest-lasting and one of your strongest allies? Settlements aren't the issue here; read the blog I wrote: http://libertarianjew.blogspot.com/2009/09/we-should-just-talk-to-them.html. Obama has P.O'ed 96% of Israelis, which is quite a feat, considering the fact that Israelis can't agree on anything else in politics with such unamity. It should be no shock, then, that Israel trades military weaponry to China and India. Israel might be the size of New Jersey, but considering its size, it is a disproportionate powerhouse.
Also, Obama even managed to agitate Cuba, as well, by extending the trade embargo for another year. Consiering we're in a recession, and that Fidel Castro is still alive and kicking, maybe it's not the worst idea for the US to open its economy up a bit to Cuban goods, such as cigars, sugar cane, and tourism.
You'd think Obama would stop at enraging allies and potential allies. But no, no, no, he has to go a step further by appeasing enemies. Since when has diplomacy done us any good against people who are out of their minds? I'm not worried that North Korea is ever going to have enough capabilities to strike the U.S., although their abilitity to strike South Korea or Japan are a whole different story, especially since Japan doesn't have nukes. But it makes you wonder what gives. Iran, though, is a whole other story. On the 8th, Tehran stated that it would partake in bilateral talks with America, but only if its about general international concerns. That means they're not halting their quest for nuclear power. It should not only be disturbing for Israel, or even Sunni Muslims that Ahmadinejad would love to destroy because their version of Islam doesn't line up with Iran's. It should be disturbing because Iran, if not stopped, will disturb balance of power politics if it manages to get its hands on nuclear power.
I can continue on a criticism of Iran, but the point I want to drive home is this: Obama has no sense of prioritization when it comes to diplomatic relations. Burning bridges with friends while pursuing failed attempts at consolidating relationships with faux amis is not only harmful to our international relationship--it becomes borderline idiotic. It makes some our peacenik European counterparts happy, and I'm sure the Arabs are loving the part where Obama chews out Israel while patting the "Palestinians" on the head. But this makes us look weak and morally confused. Even though I would like to be hopeful that Obama doesn't perform any more international idiocies, I'm sure that Obama chairing the UN Security Council meeting on the 24th will just be more of the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment