In the last year or so, and especially in the last few weeks, we have heard news coverage almost on a daily basis about the trade war between the U.S. and China. Because of the large difference between the amount of U.S. imports from China as compared to the amount of U.S. exports to China, we have repeatedly heard how unfair that is, and therefore the U.S. government must impose tariffs on a large amount of Chinese products.<\/p>\n

In this article, we offer a broader perspective on the issue between the U.S. and China.\u00a0 The conclusion we come to is that the motivation behind the recent U.S. government policy toward China is because the U.S. government does not want to have its position as the world’s leading economic and political power challenged and therefore wants to thwart China’s rise before China can become an even more serious competitor.
<\/p>\n

If one reads the front page articles of newspapers like the New York Times <\/em>in the last few months, one will find one or more times per week an article that is extremely critical of the Chinese government and life in China, e.g., stealing of American jobs, stealing of American trade secrets, espionage against the U.S government, creating instabilities in the South China Sea and threatening Asian neighbors, exploiting other countries through debt traps, great unrest in the Chinese populace and mistreatment of Chinese ethnic minorities. We now discuss each of these issues.<\/p>\n

Stealing American Jobs: \u00a0<\/strong>Yes, China exports a much larger amount to the U.S. than it imports from the U.S.\u00a0 But what is the major reason for this difference?\u00a0 The major reason is due mainly to the large difference in average wage in the two countries.\u00a0 In 2018, the ratio of the average wage in the U.S. over the average wage in China is about four (about $900\/week in U.S. versus about $220\/week in China), and 10 years earlier this ratio was probably double that because wages have been rising in China much faster than in the U.S. in the last three decades.<\/p>\n

As China developed the capabilities in its factories and the skills in its people, it is a natural migration that more and more factory and other jobs will migrate from the U.S. to China.\u00a0 Initially the jobs required little technical capabilities and skills, and then gradually require more technical capabilities and skills.\u00a0 We have seen this occurring in places like Japan and Hong Kong in the 1950s-1980s, and then occurring in places like South Korea and China starting in the 1990s, and now occurring more and more in places like Vietnam and the Philippines.\u00a0\u00a0 In the future, this will occur more and more in places like Latin America and Africa.\u00a0 Twenty or so years from now, with rising wages, China will face similar kinds of issues faced by the U.S. in the last few decades.\u00a0 This is just the result of market forces at play.\u00a0 It is not that China has been stealing American jobs.<\/p>\n

Because of its higher standard of living, U.S. must move up the industrial production chain working on activities that require more and more sophisticated technical capabilities and skills.\u00a0 In order to achieve that, U.S. must produce more technical and professional college graduates.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Unfortunately the graduate students in our technical departments in our colleges and universities are more and more populated by foreign students. [1,2]\u00a0 We will come back to this issue near the end of this article.<\/p>\n

Does imposing tariffs on Chinese imports help the American economy?\u00a0 First, the cost from the tariffs will be passed on to the import companies and eventually passed on to the customers, which means that the American people will ultimately pay for the increased cost from the tariffs.<\/p>\n

In response to the increased tariffs, besides imposing a tariff on American exports, China will buy less certain products from the U.S., such as soybeans and fertilizers.\u00a0 In order not to hurt American farmers, U.S. government then subsidizes these farmers, to the tune of $16 billions as was announced recently, in addition to the $12 billion subsidy to farmers in 2018 [3].\u00a0 This just adds to our national debt which is already astronomically high.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, China, which controls most of the world’s rare earth elements (after taking into consideration manufacturing), can limit its sale to the U.S. of these valuable ingredients which are crucial to producing various high tech products, such as computer hard drives and screens, magnets, hybrid cars, metals in aircraft engines, missile guidance and control systems, satellite communications.\u00a0 This will adversely affect U.S.’s ability to make and sell high tech industrial products, as well as utilizing them in important military applications.<\/p>\n

Yes, imposing tariffs on Chinese imports will have adverse impacts on China, but it also has adverse impacts on the U.S.\u00a0 It is not good for either country, and it is not clear in the long run which country will suffer the most.<\/p>\n

Sometimes one also hears that China’s state-owned or partially state-owned companies provide them an unfair advantage over U.S. companies. \u00a0 However, one should keep in mind that almost all the large companies in the U.S. receive all kinds of special financial subsidies from local governments, state governments, and the federal government via various tax incentives.<\/p>\n

A recent example is Amazon, whose profits nearly doubled from $5.6 billion in 2017 to $11.2 billion in 2018, but once again Amazon paid $0 in federal tax.\u00a0 As a matter of fact, it received for tax year 2018 a federal income tax rebate of $129 million. [4]\u00a0 In 2018 when various cities submitted bids to Amazon for its East Coast headquarter, many of the bids included billions of dollars of tax incentives from the corresponding city and state governments.<\/p>\n

Stealing American Trade Secrets:\u00a0 <\/strong>One of the arguments one often hears from U.S. government officials is that China is stealing a lot of trade secrets from the U.S.\u00a0 The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC) has been investigating how well various countries protect the intellectual property of foreign companies.\u00a0 In their February 2019 report [5] “U.S. Chamber International IP Index:\u00a0 7th Edition,” they found that China actually scored fairly well, especially among developing nations.\u00a0 China’s score was just below Mexico and Malaysia, but above countries like Turkey, Russia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, India, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, Renjun Bian of the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Law has recently investigated a publicly accessible database called China Judgements Online (CJO) of all judgments made in Chinese courts since January 1, 2014.\u00a0 Her conclusion [6] is that (1) foreign patent holders were as likely to litigate as domestic patent holders, and received noticeably better results \u2013 higher win rate, injunction rate, and average damages, and (2) plaintiffs won in 80.16% of all patent infringement cases.\u00a0 These findings contradict long-standing beliefs held by westerners about patent enforcement in China.<\/p>\n

One should also look at the trend.\u00a0 As China grows in terms of technical capabilities, skills, and originality, China also wants to protect her intellectual properties (IPs). Earlier in her history, perhaps even as late as 10-15 years ago, China, like other developing countries, might not have as much interest in protecting IPs.\u00a0 Now, when China is among the world’s leaders in filing patents, China now has as much vested interest in protecting IPs as other advanced countries.\u00a0 The discussion in the two previous paragraphs provide supportive evidence.<\/p>\n

Another commonly heard complaint is that in order for foreign companies to come to China to do business, they are required to form joint ventures (JVs), and therefore, it is more likely that more of their IPs will be shared with their Chinese JV partners.\u00a0 One should keep in mind that the foreign company has a choice:\u00a0 Doing business in China via JVs or not doing business in China at all.\u00a0 Many companies have decided to choose the first option, and most have continued to do that.\u00a0 The reason is that these companies have concluded that it makes sense to them from a business financial perspective.\u00a0 If it did not make financial sense to them, they would have stopped doing that.<\/p>\n

Espionage Against the U.S. Government:\u00a0 <\/strong>Again if you listen to U.S. government officials’ statements and the American mass media articles, you will conclude that China is engaging in espionage significantly more than the U.S. and other countries.\u00a0 But what is the reality? The U.S. has been spying on all world leaders, including the top leaders of her most important allies, including Germany, France, and Great Britain.\u00a0 The most obvious example is as revealed by Edward Snowden that the U.S.’s National Security Agency has been monitoring the cell phone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, according to the Washington Post<\/em> [7] “the National Security Agency (NSA) and the FBI have been tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs that enable analysts to track foreign targets.”\u00a0 The nine companies are Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.<\/p>\n

Smart assistant devices like Amazon’s Echo and Google’s Home Hub record all conversations because they need to know when you are talking to them.\u00a0 However, these devices don’t delete their recordings even after it is clear that the conversations just recorded are not addressed to them.\u00a0 This means that the U.S. government can work with Amazon and Google, or force Amazon and Google to work with them, to obtain all kinds of private information for the government.<\/p>\n

Intelligence gathering to a certain extent could be explained as part of knowing your enemy or your potential enemy, but when you couple that intelligence gathering together with initiating, encouraging, supporting, and outright instigating of regime change in a legitimate government goes beyond the line of legitimate espionage.\u00a0\u00a0 Here is just a small partial list of legitimate governments that the U.S. has instigated regime change since 1950s:\u00a0 Egypt in 1952, Iran in 1953, Democratic Republic of Congo in 1960, Dominican Republic in 1961 and 1965-66, Brazil in 1961-64, South Vietnam in 1963, Indonesia in 1965-67 and 1997-98,\u00a0 Greece in 1967, Chile in 1973, Afghanistan in 1979-1989, Poland in 1980-89, Nicaragua in 1982-89, Yogoslavia in 2000, Iraq in 2003, Syria post 2005, Libya in 2011. [8]\u00a0 It is frightening to learn how frequently the U.S. government has used its economic and military power to encourage, support, initiate, and instigate a regime change because the regime in power doesn’t see eye-to-eye with the policy of the U.S.<\/p>\n

The U.S. government has accused Huawei of working with the Chinese government to provide espionage of U.S. companies and the U.S. government.\u00a0 Yet, it has never offered any evidence for such accusation,\u00a0 but it has forbidden Hwawei equipment from being used in U.S. business as well as its military.\u00a0 It has threatened other countries with retaliatory measures if they use Huawei equipment.\u00a0 Even with such threats, countries like Great Britain are still proceeding with using Huawei equipment. [9]\u00a0<\/p>\n

Perhaps the real reason to oppose Huawei is that the U.S. government recognizes the importance of Huawei to helping China to be able to compete with the U.S. in the leading technological areas, and therefore, it wants to thwart Huawei.<\/p>\n

Not only that the U.S. government sees security threat from the Chinese government, it has also implied there is security threat from all Chinese Americans.\u00a0 In February 2018, in response to Senator Marco Rubio’s request to comment on \u201cthe counterintelligence risk posed to U.S. national security from Chinese students,” FBI Director Christopher Wray said that he “views the China threat as not just a whole-of-government threat but a whole-of-society threat.”<\/p>\n

This suggests that all Chinese Americans (even those who were born and lived all their lives in the U.S.), not just foreign students from China,\u00a0 are potential security threats, thus recreating the extremism of the McCarthyism of the 1950s and the Chinese Exclusion Act of the 1880s.\u00a0 This ignores completely the fact that Chinese Americans also want the U.S. to be strong and prosperous, keeping in mind that they and especially their children and grand children are living and will continue to live in the U.S.\u00a0 When the U.S. government adopts unfair and dangerous policy, especially completely irrational policy whose intent is to destroy China before it can become an economical and military equal to the U.S., then Chinese Americans will and should become critics of such U.S. policy. [10]<\/p>\n

Creating Instabilities in the South China Sea and Threatening Asian Neighbors:<\/strong> The U.S. government has also accused China of violating international laws as specified under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and that China is bullying her smaller neighbors and is posing a military threat to the world.<\/p>\n

China is also often accused of stealing some of these islands in the South China Sea from countries near these islands.\u00a0 First, by international laws, a country that is closest to an island is not necessarily the owner of the island.\u00a0 Its ownership is established by other criteria, such as which country first discovered or used the island, i.e., historical rights are key to determining territorial sovereignty, which is a critical point in UNCLOS and is often ignored by China critics such as the U.S..\u00a0\u00a0 Historically, there are clear cut evidence that these islands are legally Chinese territories.<\/p>\n

As to the question of whether China is abusing international laws, UNCLOS provides three procedures for settlement of disputes:<\/p>\n

\n
The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS<\/a>), an independent judicial body established by UNCLOS in Hamburg, Germany<\/li>\n
The International Court of Justice (ICJ<\/a>),\u00a0 the principal judicial organ of the UN established in The Hague, Netherlands<\/li>\n
An Arbitral Tribunal (AT) and its administrative support entity Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
What came out of UNCLOS on this issue was a decision by the Arbitral Tribunal.\u00a0 However, because this dispute involves territorial sovereignty\/historical rights, which as stated in UNCLOS is outside of the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, China from the very beginning has the right to declare in writing that it would not participate and not abide by the decision of this Arbitral Tribunal.<\/p>\n
Since these islands belong to China, China has every right to develop the islands, including adding land fills and building air strips.\u00a0 In light of the U.S.’s 7th fleet and military alliances and military bases all around China, China needs to strengthen her defenses.\u00a0 China has never taken any action to block the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea; that is just a make-up charge by the U.S. to justify her own imperialistic policy.<\/p>\n
Exploiting Other Countries Through Debt Traps:\u00a0 <\/strong>John R. Bolton, the U.S. National Security Advisor has stated that China is making “strategic use of debt to hold states in Africa captive to Beijing’s wishes and demands.”\u00a0 Let’s hear the view of one of the world’s premier experts on this subject, Dr. Deborah Br\u00e4utigam, the Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of Political Economy and Director of the China Africa Research Initiative (CARI) at Johns Hopkins University\u2019s School of Advanced International Studies, with extensive experience working in the United Nations, the World Bank, the African Development Bank, and the US Agency for International Development, and has advised more than a dozen governments on China-Africa relations.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Dr. Brautigam wrote “Yes, debt is on the rise in the developing world, and Chinese overseas lending is, for the first time, a part of the story.\u00a0 But a number of us academics who have studied China’s practices in detail have found scant evidence of a pattern indicating that Chinese banks, acting at the government’s behest, are deliberately over-lending or funding loss-making projects to secure strategic advantages for China.” [12]<\/p>\n
In the CARI blog [12],\u00a0 her team wrote “Once again, the Trump administration described Chinese lending as predatory: ‘the strategic use of debt to hold states in Africa captive to Beijing\u2019s wishes and demands.’ No evidence was provided for this characterization of Chinese lending.”\u00a0 The blog also states “As with the administration’s overblown estimates of Chinese lending in Djibouti, we urge reporters to do their own reporting on China-Africa debt issues, and not to simply report the administration’s ‘facts’ at face value.”<\/p>\n
Yes, for various reasons there have been failed Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects.\u00a0 But during the last five years, the number of BRI projects are in the hundreds which is overwhelmingly larger than the number of failed projects that have come to public attention. And some of the countries that put projects on hold in 2017 have already come back to the negotiating table.\u00a0<\/p>\n
It is important to note that the BRI projects are designed to address some of the most critical infrastructure needs of these developing countries, and successfully addressing these needs will significantly help the future economic success of these countries. \u00a0 These are difficult projects.\u00a0 On the one hand,\u00a0 there are always risks associated with such projects.\u00a0 On the other hand, they address the critical problems facing these countries.<\/p>\n
Great Unrest in the Chinese Populace and Mistreatment of Chinese Ethnic Minorities:\u00a0 <\/strong>If you listen to U.S. leaders and the Western mass media’s reporting on China, you would think that there is great dissatisfaction of the Chinese people for their lives and for the Chinese government,\u00a0 In reality, the overwhelming majority of the Chinese people recognize and acknowledge that the Chinese government in less than 70 years have lifted more than 800 million Chinese people from poverty, have led China to become the world’s second largest economy, and have changed the country from being controlled by many foreign powers while living under many unequal treaties.<\/p>\n
The Chinese people also realize that their country has many shortcomings and there are many ways that the country and their lives can be improved.\u00a0 However, they want to make these changes on their own.\u00a0 They don’t want to have these changes forced on them under the instigation of foreign powers who do not have the best interests of the Chinese people.<\/p>\n
Foreign powers have a long history of taking control of other countries and exploiting them for their own benefits.\u00a0 The method used in the 19th and 20th centuries was to colonize the other country.\u00a0 The method used now is more subtle, via suggesting, encouraging, supporting, and outright instigating regime change.\u00a0 The objective is still more and less the same, to make a change, by force if necessary, in the direction of another country to align with the interest of the foreign power.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
There has also been a lot of comments about China using face recognition technology as part of achieving security in their own country.\u00a0\u00a0 Yes, using new technology like face recognition or other artificial intelligence (AI) technology also needs to consider possible misuse of the technology.\u00a0 However, one should not be alarmed just because such technology is used by law enforcement.<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n
If such AI technology can be used to identify potential law violators, then it should not be criticized.\u00a0 For example, if it can be used to identify potential terrorists before they can strike, then it should be part of the tools for law enforcement.\u00a0 There are definitely separatists and terrorists whose objective is to create havocs in the Chinese society and to split up China.\u00a0 For a long time and even more so recently, the U.S. government has many covert operations designed to do just that (e.g., in Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Xinjiang), i.e., to split up and weaken China so that China can no longer be a viable competitor to the U.S.\u00a0 China has every right to protect its sovereignty.\u00a0<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n
Face recognition technology is already being used in U.S. airports.\u00a0 In March 2017, President Trump issued an executive order that stipulates facial recognition identification for 100 percent of all international passengers, including American citizens, in the top 20 US airports by 2021. [14]\u00a0 As a matter of fact, it has already had success three days after it was introduced in the Washington, D.C. Dulles Airport. [15]<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n
In light of the numerous cases of U.S. instigating regime changes all around the world as discussed earlier in this article, it is really naive to believe that the U.S. is not actively doing that to China, both overtly and covertly.\u00a0 For example, it was just recently announced that U.S. would be selling more than $2B of military equipment to Taiwan. [16]<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n
Contrary to what one hears from U.S. political leaders and what one reads from U.S. mass media, there is no great unrest among the Chinese people and no great dissatisfaction with the Chinese government.\u00a0 There are of course many shortcomings in China, and the Chinese people and the Chinese government will need to work hard to improve on those shortcomings.<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n
There is also no massive mistreatment of ethnic minorities, but the Chinese government and the Chinese people must pay close attention to foreign instigators of subversion and regime change, especially in light of the recent onslaught of criticisms and faked news attacking all fabrics of China, the Chinese government, and the Chinese people.\u00a0<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n
The U.S. government is again employing double standards to criticize the Chinese goverment on the issue of human rights, when President Trump and the U.S. government officially excuse Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, of murdering and dismembering the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2, 2018.\u00a0 The evidence is so conclusive and the crime is so heinous, but because Saudi Arabia is an ally of the U.S., such abuse of human rights can be excused.<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n
This is the 30-year anniversary of the June 4 incident in Tiananmen Square.\u00a0 The Chinese government probably could have found a better alternative solution to that incident.\u00a0 But we do not really know precisely what happened at Tiananmen.\u00a0 How many people were actually killed by government troops?\u00a0 Were they killed in Tiananmen Square or outside of Tiananmen Square where there were more attacks on government troops?\u00a0 How many government troops were killed by the demonstrators?\u00a0 How were the government troops provoked?\u00a0 What was the role played by foreign instigators?\u00a0 How did the six-week demonstration disrupt the operation of the government?<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n
With respect to the recent Tiananmen commemoration demonstration in Hong Kong and the even more recent demonstration in Hong Kong related to new extradition legislation, in light of the large number of regime changes instigated by the U.S. government, it is important to take that into account, especially when there is clear evidence of organized disruption, people getting paid to attend, and instigators supplying various types of\u00a0 resistance and attack tools.\u00a0 The new proposed extradition legislation is triggered by the need for extradition of a murder of a Chinese girl in Taiwan by the accused boyfriend who normally resides in Hong Kong.\u00a0 There are reasons for such extradition legislation.\u00a0 The issue is complex, and it is very easy for outsiders to fan the fire.<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n
However, there are legitimate economic concerns for Hong Kong residents.\u00a0 Housing prices are so high in Hong Kong that it is essentially impossible for average wage earners to afford any reasonable housing.\u00a0 The housing problem is almost like the situation in Northern California’s Silicon Valley except that there is no vast high tech industry to support it.\u00a0 There are not enough job opportunities in Hong Kong to project a reasonable path forward for the young people in Hong Kong, thus leading to dissatisfaction and frustration with the Hong Kong government. [17]\u00a0 The underlying cause for the mass turnout of the recent protest demonstrations is really economical, thus making it easier for political instigators to fan the fire.<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n
Conclusion:\u00a0 <\/strong>Whether it is with respect to trade imbalance, stealing of American trade secrets, security threats from Huawei, espionage against the U.S government, creating instabilities in the South China Sea and threatening Asian neighbors, exploiting other countries through debt traps, great unrest in the Chinese populace and mistreatment of Chinese ethnic minorities, there has been an onslaught of severe criticism of China from U.S. political leaders and U.S. mass media.\u00a0 However, almost all of these criticisms are exaggerated, mostly unfounded, or outright lies.\u00a0<\/div>\n
\n
As a matter of fact, as discussed earlier in this article, the U.S. government is using double standards to criticize China while it should be the one who should be receiving those criticisms.\u00a0 This is not to say that China does not have faults, because it does, but it does not deserve all the criticisms that have been levied against her.<\/p>\n
Why is this happening?\u00a0 Is it because the accusers are just uninformed?\u00a0 The more likely reason is that having been the dominating power in the world for so many years, U.S. does not want to have some other country who can compete against her so that she cannot just use her economic and military power to dictate to the rest of the world.\u00a0 Therefore, when China has not reached that level yet, U.S. government wants to do everything possible to isolate, divide, and weaken China.\u00a0 As a matter of fact, this has been the U.S. Defense Department’s broad policy as far back as 1992:\u00a0 “American’s political and military mission in the post-cold-war era will be to insure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or the territory of the former Soviet Union.” [18]<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n
The key question that U.S. political leaders should address is not how to weaken China by any and all means, but how to improve the competitiveness of the U.S.\u00a0 As discussed earlier, because of the higher standard of living in the U.S., U.S. cannot compete based on wages, but must continue to move up the industrial production chain with more technically sophisticated and creative workers.\u00a0 U.S. must train more workers in the highly technical fields, including at the graduate school level.\u00a0 Unfortunately, the U.S. is moving backward in this direction. [2]\u00a0 U.S. must also address how to rebuild the old and crumbling infrastructures around the country, and seriously take steps to reduce its massive national debt which is a time bomb.<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n
The onslaught of criticisms against China is not just the position of the Republican Party.\u00a0 It is also the position of the Democratic Party, as evident by all the negative rhetoric about China from Democratic leaders like Senator Chuck Shumer, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Elizabeth Warren.\u00a0 Both parties don’t want a multi-polar world, but want a uni-polar world with the U.S. in the center.\u00a0 However, there is an additional political motivation for President Trump to focus the attacks on China, because that<\/div>\n
\n
diverts the attention on Russia interfering with the 2016 election that helped him to win<\/li>\n
focuses the country’s attention on an external enemy that will mitigate the focus on his wrong doings and potential impeachment.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
It is to the benefits of the Democratic party and the American people not to blindly follow President Trump’s misguided and devious plan.<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n
The negative attack on China has become an attack on all things related to China, including all Chinese Americans, even those who were born and live all their lives in the U.S.\u00a0 While touting itself as a democratic country where people are all equal and a country based on the rule of law, the U.S. doesn’t practice what it preaches.\u00a0 Chinese Americans also want the U.S. to be successful and prosperous, especially considering that their children and grand children are living and will continue to live in the U.S.\u00a0 Chinese Americans like other Americans will support the U.S. government if the government is just, but just like other Americans, they will and should criticize the U.S. government if the government doesn’t even follow its own laws and constitution.<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n
This onslaught of criticisms of China is not only not good for China and Chinese Americans, it is also not good for all Americans and the rest of the world.\u00a0 Making false accusations and preaching one way to the world while acting another way, U.S. is not a government that one can trust.\u00a0 Continuing such a policy, U.S. will lose its respects and followers.\u00a0 It will adversely affect all Americans and its allies economically, politically, and culturally.\u00a0 U.S. should live peacefully with the rest of the world, collaborating but also competing fairly.\u00a0 Current U.S. policy is wrong and very dangerous, and could lead to war where everyone loses.\u00a0 All should see through the travesty and take actions to change for a better world.<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n
————————-<\/div>\n
\n
[1]\u00a0Mary Kent, \u201cMore U.S. Scientists and Engineers Are Foreign-Born<\/a>,\u201d Population Reference Bureau (PRB)<\/em>, Ja5nuary 11, 2011.<\/p>\n
[2] Elizabeth Redden, \u201cForeign Students and Graduate STEM Enrollment<\/a>\u201c, Inside Higher Ed<\/em>, October 11, 2017.<\/p>\n
[3] Eric Boehm, “Trump Says China Is Paying for His $16 Billion Tariff Bailout to Farmers. That’s Simply Not True,” May 24, 2019, https:\/\/reason.com\/2019\/05\/24\/trump-says-16-billion-tariff-bailout-to-farmers-is-paid-by-china-thats-simply-not-true\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n
[4] “Amazon in Its Prime: Doubles Profits, Pays $0 in Federal Income Taxes,”\u00a0 Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, February 13, 2019:\u00a0 https:\/\/itep.org\/amazon-in-its-prime-doubles-profits-pays-0-in-federal-income-taxes\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n
[5] “U.S. Chamber International IP Index:\u00a0 7th Edition,” U.S. Chamber’s Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC), February 2019:\u00a0 https:\/\/www.theglobalipcenter.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/023593_GIPC_IP_Index_2019_Full_03.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n
[6] Renjun Bian, “Many Things You Know about Patent Infringement Litigation in China Are Wrong,” 2017, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law: https:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/sol3\/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3063566<\/a>.<\/p>\n
[7] “U.S., British intelligence mining data from nine U.S. Internet companies in broad secret program,” The Washington Post<\/em>, June 7, 2018: \u00a0 https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/investigations\/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program\/2013\/06\/06\/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html?utm_term=.93e0607b63ee<\/a>.<\/p>\n
[8] “United States Involvement in Regime Change,” Wikipedia:\u00a0 https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change<\/a>.<\/p>\n
[9] “Huawei reportedly gets the green light to participate in Britain\u2019s 5G rollout, a would-be setback for the U.S.,” Brian Fung and Ellen Nakashima, The Washington Post<\/em>, April 25, 2019:\u00a0 https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/technology\/2019\/04\/25\/huawei-gets-green-light-participate-britains-g-rollout-reversal-us\/?utm_term=.a06fd90df8c0<\/a>.<\/p>\n
[10] For a discussion of more implications of such a U.S. policy, see George Koo’s excellent article “US will regret persecuting Chinese scientists,”\u00a0 Asia Times<\/em>, June 7, 2019:\u00a0 https:\/\/www.asiatimes.com\/2019\/06\/opinion\/us-will-regret-persecuting-chinese-scientists\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n
[11] “South China Sea Dispute\u00a0 Abuse of World Power,” Don Tow, China-US Focus<\/em>, September 15, 2016:\u00a0 https:\/\/www.chinausfocus.com\/foreign-policy\/south-china-sea-dispute-abuse-of-world-power\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n
[12] “Is China the World’s Loan Shark? – Some say Beijing lends money for infrastructue and development to pressure poor countries with debt.\u00a0 Not so.” Deborah Brautigam, The New York Times<\/em>, April 26, 2019:\u00a0 https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2019\/04\/26\/opinion\/china-belt-road-initiative.html<\/a>.<\/p>\n
[13] The China-Africa Research Initiative Blog:\u00a0 http:\/\/www.chinaafricarealstory.com\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n
[14] “The US Government Will Be Scanning Your Face At 20 Top Airports, Documents Show,” Davey Alba, BuzzFeed News<\/em>, March 11, 2019:\u00a0 https:\/\/www.buzzfeednews.com\/article\/daveyalba\/these-documents-reveal-the-governments-detailed-plan-for<\/a>.<\/p>\n
[15] “US airports’ new facial recognition tech spots first imposter,” Mariella Moon, Ergadget<\/em>, August 23, 2018:\u00a0 https:\/\/www.engadget.com\/2018\/08\/23\/us-airport-facial-recognition-first-imposter\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n
[16] “Trump Administration Plans to Sell More Than $2 Billion of Arms to Taiwan,” Edward Wong and Catie Edmonson, New York Times<\/em>, June 6, 2019: https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2019\/06\/06\/us\/politics\/trump-taiwan-arms-sale.html<\/a>.
<\/span><\/p>\n
[17] This was emphasized to me by a close Hong Kong friend during the mass protest demonstrations in 2014.<\/p>\n
[18] “U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No Rivals Develop,” Patrick E. Tyler, The New York Times<\/em>, March 8, 1992:\u00a0 https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/1992\/03\/08\/world\/us-strategy-plan-calls-for-insuring-no-rivals-develop.html<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
178 Posts<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In the last year or so, and especially in the last few weeks, we have heard news coverage almost on a daily basis about the trade war between the U.S. and China. Because of the large difference between the amount of U.S. imports from China as compared to the amount of U.S. exports to China, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dontow.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5697"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dontow.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dontow.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dontow.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dontow.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5697"}],"version-history":[{"count":131,"href":"https:\/\/www.dontow.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5697\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5896,"href":"https:\/\/www.dontow.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5697\/revisions\/5896"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dontow.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5697"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dontow.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5697"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dontow.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5697"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}