“Win-Win” Trade Deals: China’s Rising Victory and U.S. Fallen Wars

As 2020 approaches, China investing to expand continues to reap the fruits of its investments in the Americas and its Belt Road Initiative. The U.S., heavily indebted to China, invested to survive as it continues to lick its wounds from military wars. “Economic co-dependence” or China’s chosen term “win–win”?  Either way, it is proving to be a bad investment for the U.S.

Dr. Peter Navarro’s insightful 2007 book, The Coming China Wars: Where they will be fought, How they can be won, provides important information on U.S.-China Trade Relations. Working for the Trump Administration at the White House, Dr. Navarro is the Director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy (OTMP).  

I made several comments of which I shared with the author. (Full Disclosure:  In my role as Faculty Assistant, 2007-2011, at the Paul Merage School of Business, University of California, Irvine, I assisted Prof. Peter Navarro.)

In his book, Dr. Navarro makes some compelling and convincing arguments as they relate to America’s dependency on Chinese imports, questionable products, and the misappropriation of Intellectual Property. I do, however, take exception with the central argument behind the title “The Coming China Wars.”

It seems to me the wars started and came from within the U.S. – Government and Corporations- not China. U.S. politicians and businesses went to China, not the other way around. In the midst of trade deals, the things “coming” to the U.S. are its vast imports. The things “going” to China are mass jobs and technology transfers.  

Yes, the U.S.-China Relations are one of “economic codependence” but how can it be destructive when the relationship is mutually beneficial? The consumers, irrespective of their criticism, are at the core of China’s sustainability.

The beastly U.S. corporations, along with their fruitless attempt at intellectual property rights ignore that from the Micro to the Macro level the supplier is simply feeding the beast. Unraveling this would entail the Peoples of the Democratic Republic of America breaking ties with the Peoples Republic of China.

I take Dr. Navarro’s point in China’s positioning and alliance with U.S. adversaries and Navarro’s use of the “panda” and “dragon” to draw comparisons. I argue, however, that China’s geostrategic influence and power is not only derived from the massive force of a dragon but the patience of a panda.

From my perspective, China not only knows where and how but WHEN to fight via soft and hard power. It can be argued that from a geopolitical vantage point, China dominates the physical space allying itself with its timely e-commerce and fintech investments in India, the financial virtual space savvy of Russia, and the powerful nuclear engine of Iran.

Russia and China have leveraged their weaknesses and strengths, full communism and communism and capitalism. In the interim, the world continues to witness the U.S. pursue an unattainable goal of pure capitalism for all its citizens demonstrated by its multiple market and financial failures.

“To the Victor Go the Spoils”

“Made in China 2025” blueprint may include strategic plans to absorb global tech giants who capitalize on mobile engineering amassing data from a “service economy.” Being in close proximity to Silicon Valley, I listen to innovators from California, entrepreneurs from out-of-state and abroad. Pinpointing the direction of angel investors’ seed money and those who hold a vested interest foreign and domestic, I ascertain emerging technology target areas. 

China, “being an export-led economy is clearly a precondition for ‘successful’ development” according to Angela W. Little & Andy Green’s. Naturally, the U.S.-China trade relations can be seen as a “win-win” for both. In fact, “the Chinese prefer using the terms ‘win–win’ or ‘economic cooperation’ instead of aid, suggesting symmetrical cooperation between China and African countries” according to Bjorn Harald Nordtveit.  

Right, but the U.S. is not Africa. It is a powerful developed country. Developed or Redeveloping? U.S. debt accumulation has put U.S. in a vulnerable position with a reported debt ceiling of $22 trillion. China is one of the largest purchaser of U.S. debt (i.e. bonds) requiring the U.S. to obtain aid from China, or what both parties may call “economic cooperation.”

As it stands, U.S. Wars are putting them in an economically weak position in their “developed country” and appearing a powerless actor across the geo spectrum and cyberspace. Thus, by bringing their war debts to China, the U.S. has not only invested to survive but is heavily indebted to the China who has only begun to savor the spoils of victory.

The Seven Continents are on China’s circular table–one government, one party, business and banks (state and private). America’s “square table,” since its inception, has been unable to “square the circle” showing its hand. China, it’s your move.