A few days after Sept. 11, 2001, a Chinese businessman was interviewed about the events of that day. In broken English, he said something along the lines of, "9/11 bad, but good for business."
The man, a flag manufacturer, was making US flags that US citizens were clamoring to display after the attack on their country. His remark was innocent enough and didn't get much attention. Even though China had a global presence, it still seemed distant and mysterious, and it's opinion on matters of importance to US policymakers was not considered crucial.
That all changed two months later, when China joined the WTO. Some observers greeted this development with exuberance, others with alarm and yet others with casual curiosity. Regardless, it seemed to confirm what many had quietly been saying since the early 1990s: China had stepped onto the world stage.
Fast forward to this year: Everybody is intensely curious about China and almost everybody in the West -- especially in the US -- is concerned. Why? Because of CNN's Lou Dobbs. Well, not really. But he does talk about one of the US' biggest fears: that jobs are going to China.
The rationale for this concern is pretty straightforward. Basic economics says that if a company wants to make a buck, it should go abroad in search of the lowest wages. China has an abundance of cheap labor, the argument goes, so any multinational corporation that wants to stay in the game will locate some or all of its production processes there.
If that's all there was to it, China would never have to worry. But it is concerned right now -- for the first time, foreign investment in its manufacturing sector is starting to decrease. Why? It's because the line of logic just noted oversimplifies corporate mentality. Yes, in the short-run, a company might beat out its competitor by "racing to the bottom."
In the long-run, though, if it doesn't abide by labor regulations, adhere to environmental standards and invest in human capital -- that is, if it doesn't create those conditions in which workers can be productive on a continuous basis -- it'll lose.
And that's why companies are starting to withdraw their investments from China. Labor rights are minimal, hasty urbanization has poisoned its water and air and, perhaps more importantly, its work force is not all that it's cracked up to be.
Paradoxically, China faces a severe labor shortage. A fascinating new book, Fast Boat to China, shows how Chinese workers, fed up with mistreatment and lacking incentives to stay put, increasingly go "job hopping." Many employers are struggling to find and retain workers.
An interesting and important side note: Chinese engineers are not as competitive as some would suggest. Few know English or are business savvy and the vast majority are trained in schools where theory is favored over application. The result? According to the McKinsey Global Institute, only 10 percent of them can compete globally.
Given that China has been able to sustain a growth rate of 9 percent a year for the past two decades, why should this matter now? Simply, because China has accrued just about every possible benefit that it can from manufacturing (the industry that's anchored its growth since the 1970s) and has no choice but to look elsewhere for growth. It's no wonder that Beijing is suddenly stressing the importance of innovation.
People who worry that China is soon going to replace the US as the world's capitalist hub should remember that, from 1950 to 2000, 50 percent of US growth came from innovation.
The point? China has got a lot of work to do.
Ali Suhail Wyne is a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.