@BaldingsWorld Personal story involving mainland Chinese students (and their professor), trade law, and Chinese nationalism. Only a data point.
Over dinner, Chinese student studying trade law at a Western European university asked me: "Why is the West picking on China?" 1/
@BaldingsWorld When asked her to clarify what she meant, she and her collegue (and the professor, also Chinese), pointed to China's economic miracle and complained that the "West" wanted to impose "its values" and economic structures on China. 2/
I specifically pointed to China's commitments in its WTO Accession Protocol (for example, an independent judiciary), as well as the WTO obligations itself: on transparency, a functioning market economy and so on. 3/
@BaldingsWorld There was not a whole lot of argument on the other side, other than the usual "China has different values" and "Western capitalism does not work in China" and so on. The crowning argument-at which point I ended the conversation-was, "Anyway, I LOVE MY COUNTRY." 4/
@BaldingsWorld The prof, who had begin similarly strident, was taken aback by this. After dinner, he said that more and more students coming out of China have a similar *argumentative disposition*: any criticism of China is existential; "love of country" overrides rational discourse. 5/
@BaldingsWorld My adolescence was spent battling revolutionary dogma even as I saw close friends succumb to it; I know how it works. External pressure-even rational argument-reinforces the under-siege mentality rather than shedding light on the contradictions of the dogma. 6/
@BaldingsWorld So my bet would be that they really mean it. Does not bode well.
@BaldingsWorld P.s. I avoid the term "brainwashed" because the line of thinking is not limited to Chinese students. Even the @ft sometimes falls victim to the "puw wittow China oppressed by neoliberal" narrative.
@BaldingsWorld@FT P.p.s. Some additional context on China and the WTO (this is the substance of at least part of the conversation with the Chinese student).
The United States is set, on April 2, to turn the world trading system on its head. Treaties that have provided a large measure of stability for international trade, and considerable prosperity for US workers and consumers, are to be trampled and discarded.
Tariffs, I have taught consistently for 30 years, are an industrial policy tax instrument like any other. Sometimes they are needed. Like any targetted tax, they give rise to policy, political, institutional, and economic problems. Proceed with caution. 2/
So I am not approaching the issue from a doctrinaire perspective.
What the US is proposing to do is one of the most strategically destructive policies - *on its own terms* - it is possible to conceive of and to implement.
First - multilateralism as *economic* strategy. 3/
He didn't say it was bad policy. It was not. He said it was divisive. It was. Not because of the policy, but because of the scorched-earth politics of the Axe the Tax Party.
80% of Canadians will be poorer; Canada's climate policy will be less logical.
instead of taking a victory lap and tacking, the moderates are complaining about "a year ago Trudeau said something different" and the lunatics are stoking paranoia. This, to be sure, is the level of seriousness to be expected of a Noun the Verb Party addicted to ragefarming. 2/
So they forced Trudeau out and they Axed the Tax. And the negative attacks on Carney - the only mode of the Opposition - will have no resonance outside the bubble. None. I mean zero effect. Just as the attacks against the departing Trudeau are not registering any more. 3/
Trade lawyer and trade law prof here. I've been doing this stuff for 32 years. Mr. Leslie really should not use his platform to mouth banalities about things he knows - based on this Xit - exactly zero about.
I mean this is aside from the fact that there is no border security issue. And that at no other point in the history of any country has anyone used a threat of economic destruction to leverage defence spending. To meet targets set by an alliance Prez Trump disdains. 3/
Trade lawyer and former Canadian trade commissioner here.
Every Canadian government since at least 1959 has tried to expand and diversify trade outside of the US. This is why we are active in multilateral institutions like the WTO. And we we've been negotiating 1/
free trade agreements all around the world - some taking decades to continue.
In trade, as in life, location counts for a lot. So does a common language (largely). So do harmonized regulations (see location, above). So does a rich market with an insatiable appetite. (Ibid.) 2/
If you're in Québec and have a widget to sell, Maine is right next door; BC is a literal continent away; Europe an Ocean (you get the drift).
In the intro trade course, we constantly remind students that *governments* don't trade, private entities do. What government can do 3/
quietly talking to their US counterparts, Senators, Reps, and governors since the Trump announcement. Ministers have been in DC. (And, attempting public diplomacy, Premiers have been on American news channels.)
This is all standard in bilateral relations. And you'd know it 2/
if you actually know anything about how trade, diplomacy, or our own government works. Or if you just picked up a real newspaper at any time.
2. Negotiate on what? With whom?
The Commerce Secretary tells you that the US is using tariffs as a matter of industrial policy. 3/
In 2018, President Trump threatened to destroy Canada's economy because he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA, the deal Mr. Mulroney's father arranged with the US and Mexico.
He imposed illegal tariffs on Canadian imports. We hit back. No one wanted a trade war back then. 2/
We then proceeded to negotiate the CUSMA. Mr. Trump praised the new agreement he had signed to high heaven. And immediately violated the agreement he had just negotiated. This is right before Mr. Trump attempted a coup by sending a mob to hang his own VP; we were spared that. 3/