Perspective: Dealing with China the wrong way

The U.S. government has a history of mixing politics and business when it comes to China, often placing American companies at a competitive disadvantage for doing business in China. The current goings-on are no exception.

The U.S. House Committee on International Relations meets Wednesday on the subject, "The Internet in China: A Tool for Freedom or Suppression?"

U.S. Internet companies find themselves in the middle of the argument between the proponents of free trade and those who criticize China's record on human rights and freedom of the press.

It is hard to see anything constructive that will come out of these public discussions. U.S. Internet companies will spend more on government lobbying, and the Chinese government will view this as yet another attempt by the U.S. government to extract leverage on Chinese policies.

It is hard to see anything constructive that will come out of these public discussions.

China represents both a threat and an opportunity. Within 40 years, China will have an economy larger than that of the U.S. What will this mean for the U.S.? Will we lose jobs, market share and military supremacy? Or will the U.S. prosper as part of the process of China's ascendancy? One thing is clear--the Chinese Communist Party plans to stay in control, and any attempt by the U.S. government to use trade or technology to undermine the position of the Chinese Communist Party will be viewed with distrust.

As the co-founder of a U.S. Internet company with operations in China, I understand that politics between China's Communist leaders and the U.S. government has a strong impact on my business. However, during the next 40 years, the diplomatic approach that the U.S. government takes in working with its Chinese counterpart will need to evolve. Mixing business with politics is not just bad for business; it is bad for international relations. The Chinese government will increasingly see the U.S. government as an unreliable partner that ties trade and business policies to the then-status of U.S.-China relations.

related videos
Taking tech companies to task over China

House members condemn Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, Cisco for kowtowing to Beijing.

I believe we are moving in the right direction. The U.S. Congress no longer reviews free trade policy with China on an annual basis now that China is part of the World Trade Organization. It would be great if the U.S. government could maintain a consistent approach to restrictions on technology exports to China.

And I hope that someday I won't have to worry about another House committee meeting on China any more than I would worry about the House instituting a ban on French wine imports because of some disagreement we have with the French government.

Let's treat China as we would any other country of significance.

Biography
Harry Tsao is the co-founder of Mezi Media, a U.S. company that operates the Smarter.com comparison-shopping engine in the U.S., Japan and China.

More Perspectives

Communist apologists

The author seems to be missing a very important point : China will be a threat to the United States if it develops its technology and economy while maintaining or strengthening oligarchic rule.<br /><br />Yes, Harry, the United States should in fact link China's economic development with its political development. The Communist party will never release its hold on the people unless it is forced to. China needs us more than we need them. We should use this fact to our advantage.<br /><br />Anyone who suggests otherwise is a Communist toadie who is so terrified by a corrupt and oppresive goverment that he will actually defend it in public.<br /><br />Shame on you Harry. Chinese values or American values. One side or the other. Pick one.

Value??

Have you been to China? The issue at hand is neither about value nor political. It is about being competitive. The fact is, China is more competitive than US or North American. The only reason American still uses Communist as an excuse is USA knows the high possibility of losing world dominance. <br /><br />If you believe China lacks human rights, I challenge you to think again. If you children in your family living under your roof, would you let your children do whatever they want under your roof? Most Americans don't even have a good grasp of their own family of four and you want to talk about managing a country of 1.7 billion people? <br /><br />As the President of China once said to US President, "You want to talk to me about human rights? Fine, I would be more than willing to hand-over 100 million people to your country. You think you can handle it?" So don't talk to me about Human Rights until have successfully manage 1.7 billion people.

[ptryan123]

Interesting Viewpoint

As part of an open, pluralistic society, you must expect that issues such as trade with China are often the subject of political discourse. This is natural, and actually a good thing -- the result might not seem productive at first, but the process of discussion is actually the benefit. Let's not let China's extermination of free expression spill over into the US.<br /><br />In this way, we are treating China as 'as we would any other country of significance.' -- do you think that this would not be a topic of political consideration in America if, say, Canada started to censor and repress it's people in the same fashion as China? I think not.<br /><br />But this is not the most disturbing thing about this article. These comments represent a profound ignorance of the geopolitical history of the 20th century and remind me of the musing of the 'enlightened' in the 70's and '80's about the Soviet Union. Many insisted that detente and constructive engagement (ignoring the depredations of the Soviet regime) was the only rational course of action, rather than principled objection and open communication of our objections. No one really talks fondly of detente anymore, do they? <br /><br />If, as Harry asserts, China can continue to develop at the current pace for the next 40 years (somewhat suspect), and maintain Communist party control over the economy (another big if), then a economic superpower of this dimension that is predicated on repression is the last thing in the interests of the US. We should not continue 'business as usual' and hope for the best -- a principled response and consistent stand on universal human rights should be maintained.<br /><br />By the way, the rather cowardly positions/actions that the likes of Yahoo! and Google have made in doing business in China are not examples of a principled response, but rather business expediency cloaked in the mantle of 'constructive engagement'.

[The Cubelodyte]

A parallel with the Cold War

The mistrust is mutual, though somewhat muted. Remember, <br />too, the Soviet Union was a nation of immense significance until <br />it dissolved, and export restrictions were a matter of course that <br />few, if any, questioned. <br /><br />Of course, there was a much more institutionalized adversarial <br />relationship between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. than there <br />currently is between Washington and Beijing, but the principle is <br />much the same: both China and the Soviets represent <br />authoritarian oligarchical governments that can afford, at least <br />with regards to internal politics, the luxury of military <br />imperialism and the implementation of economic policies to <br />serve political goals much more directly than their more <br />democratic counterparts.<br /><br />While modern China certainly is no carbon copy of the Soviet <br />Union, and is not (at least not now and hopefully not ever) <br />militarily belligerent, there are enough similarities to make <br />American politicians as nervous as you paint them. I think it is <br />understandable, even if regrettable in some quarters, that <br />Americans have a good deal of trepidation over China when one <br />considers factors like the occupation and colonization of Tibet <br />and the saber-rattling over Taiwan, which simply wishes to be <br />left alone, and is no threat to the mainland. Remember <br />Tiananmen?<br /><br />In short, Beijing deserves a good deal of the suspicion with <br />which Washington views it.

[quan_liu_van]

moral standards

Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."

Has engagement with China ever worked?

As a China scholar, I can name several examples where foreign interlopers were 'absorbed' by Chinese culture, rather than changing it.<br /><br />From a historical perspective, what examples can you point to where the Chinese have really changed because of foreign infuence?

[yangs27]

Humans never learn

I remember a philosopher once said 'humans never learn'. They simply repeat their mistakes again and again. <br /><br />To make a judgment on this issue, we really have to understand what a communist really is. There is a great book called "9 Commentaries of the Communist Party", <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://ninecommentaries.com/" target="_newWindow">http://ninecommentaries.com/</a>.<br /><br />After you read this short book. There cannot be a second opinion on this issue.<br /><br /><br />Jason

Has engagement with China ever worked?

As a China scholar, I can name several examples where foreign interlopers were 'absorbed' by Chinese culture, rather than changing it.<br /><br />From a historical perspective, what examples can you point to where the Chinese have really changed because of foreign infuence?

Very few

Very few foreign culture have fundamentally changed China, if any. China, by design and necessity, have become very effective at absorbing and changing, as required, for their own benefit. Very much so like The Borg. I believe part of the reason has to do with the long history of China. 5000 years of history, as a country, it has gained tremendous experience and expertise in adapting to the environment and circumstance. For example, as powerful as Japan is today or 10 years ago, if one digs deeper into the history of Japan, one will find many Japanese cultural components, arts, lauguage roots in China.

Only One Recent Example

There was a guy named Mao, who thought that <br />Chinese culture should be changed into an<br />industrial, socialist culture, along the lines<br />of a European intellectual named Karl Marx.<br /><br />The question is: Did the Cultural Revolution<br />work? Did it substantially change Chinese<br />culture?<br /><br />I think that it did, especially in the coastal<br />provinces. I also think that the Cultural<br />Revolution did not produce as much change as<br />Mao hoped for. Certain traditional Chinese<br />practices, such as political corruption and<br />nepotism, have apparently made a comeback.<br /><br />Mao was, of course, Chinese, so I'm not sure it<br />this counts as "engagement". The point is that<br />Chinese culture does change, and that they do<br />pay attention to what the foreigners are doing.<br /><br />The culture in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore<br />has also changed in the last 100 years, but not<br />as much as in the PRC. . .

[aqvanavt]

Canada/Mexico

The US is treating China like it does other countries, look at Canada. A much older trading partner,nighbor,free trade alliance, and a shared history of mutual support in times of trouble. Trade behavior not so good really. Lokk at Mexico.....

[ydtian]

Blinded short-sightness

Tsao's short-sighted view was obviously blinded by the sole selfish pursuit of money. When doing business with China, did you ever ask yourself, that you are trying to help the Chinese people or the repressive Communist regime? Are you satisfying what the Chinese people want or the communists want?<br />Have you ever thought, if one day the great Chinese people grow out of their fear and trash this bullish communist regime, how would you face them?<br /><br />Yudong Tian<br />Maryland

[Chibiabos]

What are they smoking?

Republican leadership blasting tech companies for obeying Chinese law while conducting business there? What, they want these companies to not do business there at all or to break Chinese law?<br /><br />Its hypocritical beyond description, considering its the Republicans who told the nation its a 'good thing' American companies are circumventing all U.S. labor and environmental law by dumping their experienced U.S. workers to ship their operations to places like China. How about punishing companies for doing THAT? Our national security isn't just threatened, we have already taken very real damage from this outcry in places like New Orleans where the difference between the poor (some of whom lost their jobs to China) and those able to afford to go somewhere meant the difference between life and death.<br /><br />Good grief, does the irreprehensible behavior of the Republicans know no ends?

[Chibiabos]

Really?

I thought they were more in terms of 'when in Rome, do as the Romans do.'<br /><br />If you wish to do business in a foreign country, you either obey the rules of that country (however wrong or offensive), or you don't do business there, period.<br /><br />China is growing not just economically or in terms of its population, but technologically. Major electronics manufacturing operations have been shut down in the U.S. and moved to China, which not only destroys livelihoods here and throws many experienced workers onto the street, but it gives the Chinese a better-than-free ride on the technological rise. As such, were the U.S. to ban companies like Google or Microsoft from providing heavily censored Internet access as required by Chinese law, sooner or later (probably sooner), China could create its own Internet search engines that would be guaranteed no competition from established foreign competitors.<br /><br />China is already on its way to manufacturing cars to export to the U.S., and through many abhorrent disasters is in the space race. We're giving them everything they need to eventually make the U.S. obsolete.