innovation did not fall complete from heaven in a Ziploc. It’s American ingenuity and ingenuity isn’t free. So called “forced technology transfer” is neither free or trade. It’s Fa King theft. No level playing field exists internationally, nor will any soon–if ever. Some say that “no one wins in a trade war.” Really? Such nonsense can only come from the uninvolved. The real question is how much brute and outright theft does it take before the U.S. acts?
Don’t look to the WTO or the EU for any help. Simply look at how the U.S. is treated in the UN. China has no intention of engaging in fair trade. Really? It’s no surprise to anyone who reads us, that we harbor zero respect for The Economist’s bent globalist agenda. They don’t hide that. They call it “advocacy journalism.” Thus, no confusion remains when even The Economist admits the Chinese are cheats, liars, and thieves.
We can hear it now. “Chauvinism.” A Google search defines chauvinism as “exaggerated or aggressive patriotism.” Such terms are largely subjective. What we do know is that years ago Google told the Chinese apparatus to go screw itself and promptly vacated the country. That was over censorship. How can America ever trust a system that’s systemically dishonest with it’s own people?
lack of affluence many nations suffer is not the responsibility of the United States. Other nations did not create our success. Despite the rhetoric, sides do exist and economics is competition. The world is not on our side. Affluence and supposed “superpower” status come with a built-in resentful backlash. Such resentment is universal and comes in myriad forms. Resentful opposition rather than fairness is often what America receives back from the UN.
Recognizing it’s not your problem is not the same as indifference, or disengagement.
Any successful endeavor invariably results in haters. In trade terms any self-interest is blithely labeled “nationalism.” What else can they do? Criticism is all many have to bring to the table. Think Great Britain, a former superpower now facing expulsion from the globe’s largest trading block, and a contracting GDP. And they have only themselves to blame. Think huge resentment, and The Economist–self-described “advocacy journalists” and “Globalists.”
Acting in national self-interest is the very path required to build any nation. Without exception all use said. Otherwise none would now exist. Shouting selfish is yet just another attempt to manipulate.
World Trade Organization is not on our side. American enterprise has agreed to be relentlessly corn-holed by the Chinese in trade terms, without a peep by the WTO. How does more of the same represent free trade? When surveilled, hacked, and robbed, by the Chinese, tariffs, sanctions, and repayment in kind remain our only effective responses. The WTO possesses no intent to help the U.S., nor any effective leverage over China.
Organizations seeking self-protection often attempt to impose forms of arbitration. Anyone who has ever seen arbitration in action does not want anymore. Arbitration is a shield, not a system of justice, and no replacement for self-rule.
Trade is global already. Thus “globalism” is not about trade. Globalism is about the exporting of national decision making, the right to control engagement, or pass, either on our terms. Observers often hate and respect self-possession.
closest thing to globalism operating now is the EU. Are they satisfied? No. Why? The loss of national self-determination. There will never be a shortage of voices or schemes attempting to limit American action. America can count on the intensification of exactly such attempts. Such will always claim greater “justice,” “fairness,” or superior “economic benefit.” We see little of this.
Self-determination is the American way. So, what supposed benefit of “globalism” could possibly justify the loss of our freedom to choose? Fact. Nations failing to prosper will always claim injustice, just as they always have.