The "sensible center" sours on China

Robert Samuelson, as usual, gets some facts wrong in his most recent column about China (for instance, if the purpose of Chinese trade policy were to gain cheap access to raw materials, they would want a strong yuan, not a weak one). As usual, he also makes a lot of unsupported broad generalizations ("collision of national egos"?). But the column is relevant because, coming as it does from a self-appointed member of American opinion's "sensible center," it signals the continuing shift in American attitudes toward China. Here's the gist:

China does not accept the legitimacy and desirability of the post-World War II global order, which involves collective responsibility among great powers (led by the United States) for world economic stability and peace.

China's policies reflect a different notion: China First...

China accepts and supports the existing order when that serves its needs, as when it joined the World Trade Organization in 2001. Otherwise, it plays by its own rules and norms...

Most American-Chinese disputes reflect China's unwillingness to endanger domestic goals for international ends. It won't commit to binding greenhouse gas cuts because these could reduce economic growth and (again) jobs. On Iran, it values its oil investments more than it fears Iranian nukes. Likewise, it worries that unrest in North Korea could send refugees spilling across the border. Because Taiwan is regarded as part of China, U.S. arms sales there become domestic interference. And censorship is needed to maintain one-party control.

Let me note that as far as the big picture goes, Samuelson is right. China's threat to the world comes not from ideology, military aggression, or explicit domination of others, but simply from the collateral damage caused when a very huge, very selfish country consistently ignores international institutions. It's like a bull in a...um...China shop...(cough, cough)

Anyway, if Robert Samuelson is saying something, you can bet that elite opinion reached his conclusion some time ago and just recently notified him of this fact. The question is: Why is American sentiment turning against China? In the early 00s we were all aflutter about how China represented the triumph of capitalism, how it would modernize, democratize, and become a "responsible stakeholder," etc. etc. But Chinese regard for international institutions and norms has not decreased since then. What has decreased is China's willingness to let our corporations penetrate their market. Samuelson - whose "sensible center" shtick is just thinly disguised corporatism - reveals that this is his big concern:

Just recently, 19 U.S. trade associations wrote the Obama administration warning that new Chinese rules for "indigenous innovation" could "exclude a wide array of U.S. firms" from the Chinese market -- or force them to turn over advanced technology. (British firms are so incensed by "overwhelming protectionism" that some may quit China, reports the Telegraph newspaper.)

China is becoming more protectionist as it becomes richer; now that their economy is starting to produce the same high-value-added stuff as ours, they want to nurture domestic technology companies by shielding them from competition. More broadly, the fall-off in U.S. household borrowing has left American corporations looking for alternative customers. But they are discovering that China is a lot more reluctant to allow its people to buy our stuff than it was to let us exploit its cheap labor.

The upshot: Back when the only people grumbling about China were human rights activists, unions, and paranoid neocons, Big Business had an easy time shutting them up with its rosy B.S. predictions of Chinese democratization and international responsibility. But, as it starts to see China as more of a threat than an opportunity, Big Business is shifting sides. And as Big Business goes, so goes American mainstream opinion.


Bonus unrelated China article: China is now routinely jailing people for advocating on behalf of earthquake victims...