Strategic Trade in the Asia-Pacific Region
Finance: The Promise and Challenge of Strategic Trade Engagement in the Indo-Pacific Region, March 15, 2022
Forced labor is also a concern outside of China. When poor people go to work, especially children, they accept conditions that are simply unacceptable in the developed world. International inspection, (which includes the American workplace), would help this. International employee-ownership, with transfer pricing based on a common market basket of worker goods, is the ultimate solution.
Let me reiterate - we are not exemplars in the matter of forced labor. It can be found on our soil. By the same token, we are not as “developed” as we think we are. American development is uneven. In some parts of the country, poverty and poor labor conditions are as common as any “third world” country. Meanwhile, some nations on the pacific rim are as advanced as we are. Just as there is a global upper class, there is a global middle class. We don’t have a monopoly on sky scrapers or fast food.
From the Indian subcontinent to southeast Asia and Indonesia, a key concern is climate change. When I shared that I was doing comments for this hearing with a friend in Jakarta, she responded with a map of global sea level rise. I had already seen it.
Warming in the United States is merely inconvenient. In the Indo-Pacific region, it will be deadly. Island nations and Bangladesh will simply be eliminated. This constitutes a large share of the global population. Java has 154 million people in the same space that the United States has 53 million in the Boston-Washington urban cluster. Visual relocating them.
Sea level rise is more than the matter for academic debate (which is largely settled - climate change is an imminent threat). It is time to be serious people on this issue.
The foundational question must be this. What strategy is the nation pursuing?
Are we putting consumers ahead of the interest of workers, both here and abroad?
Are we acting in the public interest or in the interest of commercial concerns? How are we balancing these two concerns?
What is the impact of our relationships on the environment, not only on warming but on the basic questions of pollution? Stopping the warming of polluted air and water still leaves us with polluted air and water.
Most importantly, how are donors affecting how we approach these questions. Who is donating to member political and to “public information” campaigns?
Any actions the Subcommittee or the Special Trade Representative take must consider these matters.
The next issue is tax policy. The easiest form of multilateralism is to comply with the rest of the world on taxing imported and exported goods. This means enacting a border adjustable value added tax. Goods that come in our taxed while goods that go out are not. The current system puts consumers over workers, encourages the exploitation of overseas workers and constitutes an unconstitutional export tax. See attachment one for our usual analysis of this issue.
The remaining issues concern China.
The first is bilateral and multilateral. How are we responding to the first set of questions in this relationship, particularly in regard to workers and large firms. Intellectual property is also a concern, although given the growth of the Chinese technical sector, perhaps the Chinese have more to lose than we do. On artificial intelligence, we are falling behind. Perhaps we need to send more American students to Chinese universities (although they should be armed with questions and answers about our political system.
Authoritarian regimes see the protection of the ruling party in one of two ways. One is simply the preservation of political and social power. The other option is that the ruling party is committed to its ideals and fear that outside influences will threaten the nation’s way of life. We can catch more flies with honey, so gently educating Chinese leadership should be tried. If they were to see how the nation can be improved by losing an election, perhaps they will be amenable to a change in tactics.
A multilateral approach is helpful here. Of course, many of our partners may not be paragons of Democracy. Of late, neither is the United States. Our own problems are a teachable moment. No society is perfect. The nation can use our current struggles as an example that democracy is not an end, it is a process. Our difficulties with a vocal authoritarian movement supporting an authoritarian former president can be used as a teaching moment. The Chinese leadership will not need much convincing on how bad an authoritarian leader can be, given the last four years.
This dovetails nicely to the question of the Uighurs. Much discussion has occurred on this front over the last few years. Our analysis of this issue has been shared with Congress on more than one occasion, including the need to look inward on the issue of slavery - an not merely at our past sins. See our second attachment. We can also add our support of tyranny throughout our history and the Native American genocide. Again, our flawed past and how we are overcoming it may be our best narrative in dealing with our future and China’s.
Multinationalism on this issue should cast a wide net. It might even be an occasion to make peace with recent enemies, especially the Islamic Republic of Iran. Including them in a coalition of conscience regarding the Chinese Turkmen (as well as in dealing with the Taliban) would be a powerful statement. This is an opportunity that rarely presents itself. A united front on this issue threatens the Chinese plans for a Belt Road. We can use that to help the Uyghurs.
The Belt Road takes us to our last destination, containing Chinese hegemony. The Trans Pacific Partnership was designed to counter emerging Chinese power. Now the Belt Road projects are in full swing and our biggest tool is no more. While I share the concerns of many regarding the power of industry in enforcing such agreements, some of these concerns are allayed by the recently negotiated US - Mexico - Canada Agreement. The gains for workers and the environment should be migrated to all such agreements and the TPP process should be reopened.
The final question is to examine who really killed the TPP and why. Was this a case of an inept presidential candidate running amok or did he gain personally from raising the issue. Was it merely sparring between the major campaigns that killed the agreement or were there more organized interests behind the scuttling of the agreement.
This matter demands investigation. The intelligence community needs to follow the money (assuming it has not done so already). The Public Integrity Section of the FBI must take part. Even the Federal Election Commission has a role in this (OK, stop laughing). The death of the TPP and the rise of the Belt Road are too much of a coincidence not to take a second look. Our democracy needs this question answered, even though many are not asking it. The Subcommittee must.
Attachment: Trade Policy
Attachment: Fighting Forced Labor Video
posted by Michael Bindner at 10:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home