Rush Doshi
@RushDoshi · Asia
Rush Doshi is followed by The State of Israel for research and subject expertise coverage connected to China in the Asia chapter.
Appreciate @abrownepek discussing the need for “allied scale.” I’ve been in Tokyo the last few days. Lots of agreement here that this is the best (and perhaps only) path to techno-industrial resilience. Some say the alliances are too wounded for this to happen. We think there is more resilience than often understood. Now is the time to develop practical proposals for the world after Trump. https://t.co/zkHmZZdSiy
It is not an “exclusionary economic bloc” to give better trade terms to allies than to China in some sectors. Plenty of high-value trade will continue with China in that model — but others will also have a shot. And indeed, there is even an inclusive option for China in this approach: they can invest in our economies (with tech transfer, use of local suppliers, labor compliance, network and data compliance, and JVs) and make enormous profits while we gain capacity, jobs, and resilience. Without barriers, they will not do so. But your argument is that we should not treat China differently from others, no matter environmental or labor differences, no matter the massive subsidies or its non-market economy, and regardless of risks of dependency! That argument is in effect a call for free trade with China at the expense of our workers and businesses. I suspect you will disagree, but to me, your arguments on China seem functionally neoliberal and at odds with labor interests. Take electric vehicles. I don’t know what is “left” about saying that protecting workers from China’s mercantilism in the auto sector could lead to war, but that’s your argument, is it not? One that basically calls the position of UAW and USW reckless, just as you’ve called the position that we should treat China differently on trade reckless, even though it is in fact materially different? On issues of international economics involving China, your argument to me seems to be that if we protect our workers and businesses in some cases (e.g., restrict the free flow of goods and capital between the US and China) we are risking war or being “exclusionary,” therefore we should not protect our workers and businesses. Again, this is functionally neoliberalism.