Mitt Romney has spent more time articulating a substantive outline for his China policy than his rivals. Economics is central, but he’ll need to offer more if he gets the Republican nod.
China’s impact on the U.S. economy and its rising global power gives China a significant role in the Republican primaries. Mitt Romney, the embattled frontrunner for the nomination, articulates a China policy focused primarily on economic issues to attack President Barack Obama’s handling of the American economy. On the few occasions that he discusses China from a security standpoint, Romney emphasizes the need for U.S. military predominance to deal with a potentially threatening China with opaque intentions.
In general, however, Romney’s China policy is narrowly expressed, leaving many issues untouched and others only indirectly addressed. Instead, Romney talks about China in a limited, consistent, and measured manner that fits within a larger campaign narrative focused on domestic economic issues.
Most notably, Romney’s statements about “standing up to China” and labeling China a currency manipulator drew attention from media pundits and his Republican opponents alike. His critics accuse him of pandering to domestic workers, warning that Romney’s assertive approach might spark a trade war.
Conventional wisdom eschews taking politicians at their word with tough campaign rhetoric on China, however, and some members of the business community suggest that if elected, Romney would eventually moderate his stance to deal with the complexity of U.S. policy on China.
The approach of Romney’s Republican contenders to China varies along the dual lines of policy and politics. Compared to the other candidates, Romney has been relatively successful in providing substantive policy stances and fitting China coherently within his overall campaign narrative. Understanding the other candidates’ approaches provides important contrasts to Romney’s policies and approach.
Newt Gingrich, Romney’s main rival in the primaries, hasn’t articulated a coherent policy, choosing instead to employ fear-mongering rhetoric about a threatening China. Indeed, Gingrich’s policy statements fail to exhibit a detailed understanding of China, despite his profession that he has “been studying China since the 1960s.”
Gingrich’s statements are inconsistent, on the one hand claiming that China overtaking the United States economically is one of three major “catastrophes” facing the United States, but on the other, saying, “I don’t worry about China. I worry about us.” Most of his responses to questions about China actually sidestep the topic, instead addressing problems in the U.S. domestic economy.
His policy prescriptions draw on a bland formulation calling for more innovation, education, and fiscal conservatism, an uncontroversial consensus that’s widely accepted within the Republican Party. And in contrast to Romney, China doesn’t play a prominent role in Gingrich’s published foreign policy statements.
Rick Santorum’s statements about China, similar to Gingrich’s, rely on the political value of painting China as a threat and lack concrete policy prescriptions. Santorum, however, is even more hawkish and outspoken, railing against China’s “godless socialism,” and painting China as a thief of U.S. manufacturing jobs and as a scapegoat for problems affecting the American middle class.
Ron Paul, in contrast, avoids blaming China, instead insisting that “we can’t go looking for scapegoats, we can’t blame China.” Paul’s views on China fall within his larger, unique foreign policy vision of a vastly decreased U.S. military role worldwide but a continued emphasis on free trade and open markets. Paul rejects protectionist measures as a way to respond to China’s actions, emphasizing engagement, negotiation, and persuasion rather than a strong military presence to shape China’s choices.
But back to Romney. His public pronouncements predominantly target the ways that Chinese practices are problematic for the U.S. economy. In policy terms, Romney strongly advocates a rules-based international system, often repeating that China is “cheating” and needs to “follow the rules” with respect to intellectual property, currency manipulation, cyber warfare, and predatory pricing, all of which he argues are hurting the United States economically. Romney’s economic plan also advocates a robust U.S. trade policy based on open markets, expanded trade agreements, and a stronger focus on trade policy as an instrument of statecraft.
Much attention has been given to Romney’s statement that on his first day in office he would label China a currency manipulator, and there has been some debate over whether this would actually trigger a trade war. Legally, such action merely obligates the treasury secretary to initiate negotiations with the Chinese; some argue it has no practical value other than to shame China.
Currency issues have become less central in U.S.-China relations over the past two years, in part due to the steady real appreciation of Beijing’s currency, coupled with Washington’s own quantitative easing policies. But Romney’s prescriptions for a tough trade policy to address other systemic economic frictions are at once both troubling and encouraging: troubling for the real possibility that punitive action against China would evoke some level of punitive response, and encouraging because he’s the only remaining candidate whose proposals evince deeper thinking about how to influence China and address long-standing U.S. frustrations.
Romney’s assessment, both on trade issues and on security, is that China’s desire for stability and access to U.S. and global markets form a key bargaining chip. This indicates that China can be influenced and robust U.S. policy can affect change.
Despite Romney’s clarity and consistency on economic and trade matters related to China, his remarks haven’t delved into the obvious security challenges associated with such a complex bilateral relationship. This narrow focus on economic issues rather than on geopolitical trends is likely based on an assessment that with respect to China, Obama is weakest on trade, and that, even though Obama promised in 2008 to be tough on China, he has avoided confronting Beijing directly in a major way – including refusing to label China a currency manipulator.
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Vulgor
@Fu MC
You my friend didnt understand my post either. I was questioning what ScDa…something wrote in his post. Its Aristotlean(dont know how its called in English) Rhetoric, maybe even sarcasm. Of course Russia wouldnt have nuked China if the USA hadnt intervened. Claiming that that is true is madness. Thats why everything was phrased as questions…………I certainly got my facts right. In essence im saying the same thing youre trying to say.
Vulgor
@Fu MC
Sry, not Aristotelean Rhetoric, I meant Plato’s Dialectic.
Fu MC
Ok. My mistake, Vulgor. I realised it too late. ‘d be good if the Diplomat has a feature for editing like the Asian Wall Street Journal online for comments.
Maximus
I prefer Mitt Romney to Newt Gringich but if Dr Ron Paul is the elected President of America, that would be best.
Whatever Mitt Romney’s position as regards China, fact is America’s economy is in big sh*t and a house of cards. Washington worries abaout the many way China could wilfully or accidentally or ignorantly kick down America’s house of cards and the immediate collapse therefore of America and its economic/financial system.
Brings to mind why Washington says it needs to shape Beijing’s “behaviour”, doesn’t it? For what purpose? To what extent? Now, that is clearer. That’s why Washington needs a military force in East Asia to threaten Beijing. Then again, it seems force is the only way Washington knows how coerce compliance with other countries to do its bidding. It can’t have independent sovereign countries kicking sand in America’s face and knocking down its house of cards.
So in truth, for all its macho military posturing, America is very vulnerable and feeling very vulnerable indeed. Economics could be the lynchpin to undo America.
I would respect America a lot more if it face squarely with reality and fix its economy first. America really needs Dr Ron Paul.
Vulgor
I totally agree. Although Ron Paul has a few strange views by strictly, almost to strictly adhering to the Constitution, he seems to be the one thats most reasonable. He seems to be someone who is actually trying to do real politics. Mitt Romney called the Turkeysh goverernment a “terrorist regime” at the Debate in South Carolina, I mean come on, how can somebody like that be trusted to handle foreign relations. Same goes for Gringich. I feel like both Romney and Gringich are Populists, theyre just saying what most people would like to hear. Thats good for your votes, but its not actual politics, and it certainly is dangerous.
SCdad07
If Romney is the next US president: His 5 sons would serve the country better than before. They are the future secretary of defense, treasury, CIA, pentagon….
Perry, please help me out. What is the fifth one?
OOOPs – wall street or Cayman Islands president?
Papa John
@SCdad07,
Your post is just nonsense! America is not like Communist regimes like China and the worst of North Korea, where its leaders are passed from generation to the next. Don’t tell me China is not. Its unelected leaders are in fact those of princelings. These are little emperors, my Chinese SCdad07 friend!
Liang1a
thomas wrote:
February 1, 2012 at 2:33 pm
You’re always whining and complaining about everything in life! Remember it’s China that has been aggressive, belligerent, cocky & bullying all of its neighbors not the US! Tell me what sort of history giving China the special privileges to own the East & SC seas over other countries in the region?? Too absurb & delusive! The US bases are there in those independent countries with the approvals and agreements from their legitimate liberal governments elected democratically by their people ( unlike the communist chinese gov’t!!). So, what’s your problem with that? You’d better keep your nose out! You threw all the garbage translation into this forum in order to scare us all?! Quite useless, sorry!
—————————
Liang’s response:
You’re the one who is whining. If you don’t like China’s “assertiveness” why don’t you do something about it? Come on, declare war. The Chinese is for those who can read Chinese. The English translation is for those who cannot. If it made you feel inadequate then fine. Your problem, not mine.
thomas
No one wants war except the insane people like you & Mao- Tse-Tung!Without doing business with the US & EU in the past three decades, then China today is still just ‘a big guy with feet of clay’! When you’re aggressive, evil & bullying, other people will band together against you! That’s just the natural law (the right to defend themselves against those who would rob, enslave, or kill them)!China is just a spoiler, an irresponsible stakeholder at least till now!
Vulgor
However your forgetting that without doing business with China, the countries in the US and Europe wouldnt have been able to keep up their standard of living, which was only possible due to products becoming cheaper and cheaper due to companies outsourcing their production facilities to China in order to save money. Just take a look around your own stuff and you will be surprised how much is labelled made in China. Trade is only done if beneficial for both parties, unless its forced by means of military actions.
Liang1a
thomas wrote:
February 2, 2012 at 1:27 am
No one wants war except the insane people like you & Mao- Tse-Tung!Without doing business with the US & EU in the past three decades, then China today is still just ‘a big guy with feet of clay’! When you’re aggressive, evil & bullying, other people will band together against you! That’s just the natural law (the right to defend themselves against those who would rob, enslave, or kill them)!China is just a spoiler, an irresponsible stakeholder at least till now!
———————————-
Liang’s response:
If you don’t want war then why don’t you close all your bases and go home? It is you who are talking about pivoting to the Pacific to encircle China. You keep committing acts of war and deny you don’t want war. This is like a child denying he had eaten any cake when his mouth is smeared with chololate. At least admit it like a man. Mao was a great Chinese hero. Too bad Hu and Wen don’t have half his courage. Talking about “rob, enslave, or kill”, the US is the only one who had ever enslaved its own people. America is also the one that has robbed and killed others by the millions. Can you show me one single Chinese soldier beyong its border doing anything other than acting as peacekeepers? China will defend every part of its sovereign territories but it will never send one soldier into other countries for the sole purpose of robbing them or killing their peoples. That is the specialty of the US, Japan and the Europeans.
thomas
‘If you don’t want war then why don’t you close all your bases and go home? ….Talking about “rob, enslave, or kill”, the US is the only one who had ever ENSLAVED its own people”!!!!It’s funny here!!
Leonard R.
I like Romney on the PRC. On day #1 he will label it as a currency manipulator. There is not much room for moderation there. Either he does it or he does not.
I don’t like Romney on Afghanistan.
@Swain& Palmer: “His critics accuse him of pandering to domestic workers, warning that Romney’s assertive approach might spark a trade war.”
–
There already is a trade war. It’s time the US started fighting it.
Liang1a
Leonard R. wrote:
February 1, 2012 at 10:45 am
I like Romney on the PRC. On day #1 he will label it as a currency manipulator. There is not much room for moderation there. Either he does it or he does not.
I don’t like Romney on Afghanistan.
@Swain& Palmer: “His critics accuse him of pandering to domestic workers, warning that Romney’s assertive approach might spark a trade war.”
–
There already is a trade war. It’s time the US started fighting it.
————————
Liang’s response:
Leonard, please ask your congress to ban Chinese imports. Then in one fell swoop we can stop the incessant American bloodsucking of our resources so that we can shift our energy and resources to domestic development. And ban the export of any American products to China so that we can kick out all the American investments in retaliation. With all foreign companies gone, China can develop its domestic indigenous technologies faster. China can develop the world’s most advanced supercomputers and jet engines but cannot develop a cell phone or car engine. It is time to make big changes.
Liang1a
In dealing with China, American politicians should understand how disgusted the real Chinese people feel about America. Even though the so-called Chinese elites in the establishment are glorifying and pandering to the Americans, the real Chinese people are no longer tolerant of America’s actual aggressions especially in the South Sea and other territorial invasions. If America wants to have genuine peace with China then it must pull its forces out of the Asian region and stop its encirclement of China. Below is a quote from an article about America’s aggressive role in the South Sea. The disgust expressed is clear. And America should take careful note of it. Even if the government of CCP continued to sell out the Chinese interests, the Chinese people will not support it. Ultimately, the Chinese government must obey the will of the people or go the way of the corrupt Qing Dynasty.
And it is no longer possible for the US to deal with China from a position of strength. Already China’s GDP on the real PPP basis has caught up and exceeded the American GDP in 2011. By the end of 2012 Chinese GDP will significantly exceed the American GDP by some $2 trillion or more. By 2020 China’s GDP will double that of the American GDP. At which time China’s military will also be twice as powerful as the American military. Nor can America go to all out war now against China to destroy it without itself being destroyed as well. Economically, America has no benefit to China but will only suck China’s economic lifeblood. America can only benefit a few compradors who sell out China to gain profit for themselves and their children as they run off to America to live out their lives in comfort. But actually the Chinese in America are not all that much in comfort. The latest news is about a Chinese-American who got badly beaten up in Chicago and robbed of his money and shoes who barely escaped with his life by running away in his bare feet in the snow and ice. This makes me think of the difference between running away bare feet in the snowy Chicago streets from American thugs and fighting bare feet in snowy Korean hills against American aggressors in the defense of the motherland. One is shameful while the other is glorious and heroic.
============================
http://www.junshijia.com/article/201201/90469.html
第一个好处，看清楚来以美国为首的西方丑恶的嘴脸。
Translation:
The first good point is that the ugly face of the American led Western cabal
is now clearly seen.
虽然在南海问题上，中国正在经受著，三十年来最大的煎熬，但是也不得不承认，
南海问题上，中国正在从过去的被动消极的抗议，开始慢慢的认清楚西方的嘴脸了。
Translation:
Although China is currently suffering the biggest agony of the last 30 years, it
is now clear that China with respect to the South Sea problem has begun to progress from passive and pessimistic protests to unambiguously understanding
the true face of the West.
西方不断的挑动中国的痛觉神经，一方面是想要从中捞取利益，另一方面也是想刺
探中国的底线和反抗意志到底有多强。
Translation:
The West is unceasingly irritating and tormenting the pain nerve of China. On the one hand it is planning to gain profits while on the other hand it is probing
China’s bottom line to see how strong its resolve to resist is.
西方的这种双重标准和明枪暗箭的针对中国的做法，已经让很多仁人志士明白了，
西方并不是此前一些精英们所说的那样的美好，他们的体内同样的存在著肮脏的思
想和丑陋的嘴脸。
Translation:
The double standard of the West and its open attack and hidden assault against
China have made many idealists understand that the West is not as fine as
what the elites have glorified. Within their bodies there are the same
filthy thoughts and ugly face.
thomas
You’re always whining and complaining about everything in life! Remember it’s China that has been aggressive, belligerent, cocky & bullying all of its neighbors not the US! Tell me what sort of history giving China the special privileges to own the East & SC seas over other countries in the region?? Too absurb & delusive! The US bases are there in those independent countries with the approvals and agreements from their legitimate liberal governments elected democratically by their people ( unlike the communist chinese gov’t!!). So, what’s your problem with that? You’d better keep your nose out! You threw all the garbage translation into this forum in order to scare us all?! Quite useless, sorry!
nirvana
How many times have we been served the usual line of arguments: “you are hurting the feeling of the Chinese” by the official propaganda?
And therefore, China has to “react, defensively” (e.g. attacking the Philippines, teaching Vietnam another lesson,…), because China is under threat. Not of invasions, of sea lane blockade, of trade embargos, of diplomatic isolation or of any other imaginable physical aggressions. No it is rather an unbearable moral aggression: “You dare tell us that we do not abide to international laws. You make us losing face, in front of our populace. You encourage our intellectuals to show defiance to us”.
SCdad07
Substituting US, India, Vietnam, Philippines, etc. in ‘those words’, we find the same lines quite truthful.
My feeling is hurt. Sorry, did I hurt your feelings?
nirvana
@SCdad07,
Do citizens of other nations have the same susceptibilities?
Here are ghits (Google hits) for some comparable phrases involving other nations:
“hurts the feelings of the Chinese people” 17,000
“hurts the feelings of the Japanese people” 178
“hurts the feelings of the American people” 5
“hurts the feelings of the German people” 2
“hurts the feelings of the Jewish people” 2
“hurts the feelings of the Indian people” 0
(http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3425)
Hassan Nur
Interesting thoughts, Liang1a. Always look forward to your comments.
DownRedChina
@Liang1a:
Without American consumers, China is nothing. PERIOD.
FYI, America pulled China out of stone age. America rescued China in WW2 – otherwise China would still be Japanese slaves. Russia would nuke China in 1969 if America didn’t intervene. America let China in WTO and pour money into China. It’s a wise thing for you to show graceful toward America. Instead you badmouth America, you bite the hands that feed you.
America comes to Asia to defense the weak and deter big bully China.
SCdad07
US should thank China for WW2.
If Japan was not tied down by China, “Ohio” might happen – Over the hill in October.
US reaped the fortunes from WW1 & WW2.
Talking about short sightedness, US chose badly between Chiang and Mao.
Liang1a
SCdad07 wrote:
February 2, 2012 at 10:38 am
US should thank China for WW2.
If Japan was not tied down by China, “Ohio” might happen – Over the hill in October.
US reaped the fortunes from WW1 & WW2.
Talking about short sightedness, US chose badly between Chiang and Mao.
————————-
Well said, SCdad. The truth is the US had done next to nothing in the Pacific. It was China who had done all the fighting and dying. All the US had done was captured a few islands against a few Japanese soldiers who were half starved by that time and couldn’t resist.
According to the Wiki figures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Human_losses_by_country
Chinese military deaths: 4 to 5 million
Chinese civilian deaths: 7 to 16 million
Chinese total deaths: 11 to 21 million
Japanese military deaths: 2 million
Japanese civilian deaths: .5 to 1 million
Japanese total deaths: 2.5 to 3 million
American military deaths: 416,800
American civilian deaths: 1,700
American total deaths: 418,500
According to some other sources at:
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/peaceinthepacific/numbers
292,131 — Americans died in WWII
51,983 — Americans died in the Pacific
7,000 — Americans died on Iwo Jima
12,000 — Americans died on Okinawa
Apparently, the number of American deaths varies greatly according to different sources. But it is also obvious that the number of American deaths in the Pacific theatre is minuscule compared to the number of Chinese deaths. The “great battles” of Iwo Jima and Okinawa that the Americans are so proud of were nothing more than skirmishes compared to the truly great battles that raged in China. In the battles of Chang Sha where the Chinese repeatedly defeated the Japanese, hundreds of thousands of troops were involved on each side and deaths numbered in the tens of thousands on each side. It was also the Chinese who won the Burma War. The American Merrill’s Marauders who took a lot of credit for winning the Burma War was itself trapped by the Japanese and had to be rescued by the Chinese when they were on the point of being wiped out by the Japanese. Therefore, the Americans had done next to nothing in the Pacific other than selling arms at exorbitant prices to the Chinese and bombing the Japanese with atomic bomb.
Above all the Americans did not enter the war to help the Chinese. They entered the war to beat the Japanese who threatened to shut them out of Asia.
Vulgor
The USA saved China in WW2? Russia would have nuked China if the USA hadnt intervened? Where did you learn history? America LET China into the WTO? Pour money into China? Do you know who’s responsible for over 70% of direct investments into China? Do you know what direct investments are? Get your facts straight. The USA are the most powerful nation in the world, but arrogance and ignorance are the beginning of the end. Always.
Liang1a
Vulgor wrote:
February 2, 2012 at 11:33 am
The USA saved China in WW2? Russia would have nuked China if the USA hadnt intervened? Where did you learn history? America LET China into the WTO? Pour money into China? Do you know who’s responsible for over 70% of direct investments into China? Do you know what direct investments are? Get your facts straight. The USA are the most powerful nation in the world, but arrogance and ignorance are the beginning of the end. Always.
————————-
Liang’s response:
Where did you learn history? America saving China from Russia was nothing more than propaganda. As I said, China already had many nukes which can destroy dozens of Russian cities. And there is no way that Russia will be willing to trade the destruction of many of its biggest cities just to nuke a few Chinese villages.
America had poured hundreds of billions of dollars into China. But so what? What benefit has it confered on China? Furthermore, by devaluing its yuan, China had subsidized America’s investment in China. For every billion dollars America had invested in China, the Chinese government had subsidized 150% in terms of yuan. For example, if a factory cost 8 billion yuan to build then with the exchange rate set at 3 yuan per dollar it will require $2.7 billion. But by devaluing the yuan to 8.27 yuan per dollar in 1994, the Chinese government 5.27 billion yuan for each $1 billion American investor brought in. So with $1 billion the American investor can build his 8 billion yuan factory and still have .27 billion yuan left. Therefore, China subsidized America’s FDI in China and not the other way around. China was foolish under the stupid rule of the Dengist clique. Hopefully, the next Chinese rulers will be smarter.
In terms of PPP GDP, China is already bigger and richer than the US. So you are the one who need to get his facts right. You people are the one who are arrogant because of your ignorance. And if you think you can sink the Chinese economy by stop importing Chinese goods, then why don’t you do that. Then we will see who sinks and who swims.
Fu MC
“Russia would have nuked China if the USA hadnt intervened?”
What kind of utter rubbish is this, “Vulgor”? The pot calling the kettle black? It seems you are totally abberrated and do not know your facts. The Russians were welcomed and seen by the Chinese as saviors and liberators when Gen. Zhukov transferred his armies from the West after defeating Hitler and launched a meticulously planned attack against the barbaric Japanese and kicked their asses for six.
The American bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they feared the Russians and Chinese would get to Tokyo before them, hence the urgency to bomb Japan and get them to surrender to the Americans before the Russians together with the Chinese armies launched their invasion of Japan.
Vulgor
@Liang
Please stop being so aggressive, your Chinese nationalist stance isnt helping anyone, its hurting China. Btw, you didnt really understand my post. I was questioning everything I write my post, that means NO the USA did let not China into the WTO and NO USA didnt save China in WW2 and NO the USA is not investing a lot of money in China and NO Russia would not have nuked China. The arrogance and ignorance part was aimed at ScDa… something. I got my facts right.
China has been working on its own nuclear project since the 50’s, and the Russians surely didnt like it. The Americans did nothing during WW2 for China except for supporting Chiang Kai Shek who later fled to Taiwan. Over 70% percent of FDI are coming from HK, Taiwan and Singapore. The ret is split between Europe and the US. You completely misunderstood me.
Im Chinese, having grown up in Europe, and I know how proud we Chinese are about our culture. Well then let me tell you something that Europeans know better than anybody else, something no Chinese knows. Nationalism is bad, it doesnt help anyone.
Kick out all the foreigner, well by doing that you will ruin the American and the European economy and at the same time catapult China back into the stone ages. China produces to export, and you know why? Because China itself cannot consume all that it produces, by far not. Interdependence is the word my friend. Not Nationalism and Xenophobia. Cooperation and Respect. Not pumping fists at your chest.
Liang1a
DownRedChina wrote:
February 2, 2012 at 12:29 am
@Liang1a:
Without American consumers, China is nothing. PERIOD.
FYI, America pulled China out of stone age. America rescued China in WW2 – otherwise China would still be Japanese slaves. Russia would nuke China in 1969 if America didn’t intervene. America let China in WTO and pour money into China. It’s a wise thing for you to show graceful toward America. Instead you badmouth America, you bite the hands that feed you.
America comes to Asia to defense the weak and deter big bully China.
————————
Liang’s response:
The Dengists CCP is stupid to give away so much goods to the Americans for free. The truth is the Americans would have nothing without all the free gifts from China. China saved the US in WW2. I doubt if Russia or USSR would have nuked China. China already had nuclear bombs of its own by 1972. China had developed nuclear bombs since the 1950’s. By 1970’s China already had functional nuclear bombs on ICBMs that can reach all parts of the USSR. The USSR would not have bombed China because there were no critical issues that could justify the destruction of many Russian cities including Moscow, Leningrad, etc.
I’ve always said that the WTO is a dog collar around China’s neck with which the West and Japan can jerk China around. It was an evil day that China was tricked into joining that evil organization. It is another stupid mistake made by Hu and Wen. It is a good that these two are leaving soon. These are the last of the hand-picked Dengists. Hopefully, after they are gone the next team will have more courage, nobility, and common sense to distance China from the bloodsucking US.
The last thing China needs is more of America’s useless money. These are nothing more than investments that are used to exploit China’s cheap labor. American products sold in China also suppress the indigenous companies. China must ban all FDI and kick out all the Japanese, American, and European companies so that Chinese people can have the domestic market for themselves.
aaron
@ Liang1a – Your understanding of military issues is truly inept. The importance and gravity of military battles is not simply measured by they number of lives lost, it’s measured by the larger affect on the enemy’s ability to wage war. In that respect, America’s naval defeat of Japan, and its attack on Japanese shipping were a key factor in detracting from Japan’s overall ability to maintain supplies and fight. China would not have been able to overcome Japan without American help.