Tom Cotton has done what you might expect a liar would do when he sees the world of fantasy in which he used to live, has crumbled. He lied. That wasn’t just a small white lie to hide his embarrassment, but a big fat lie aimed at upsetting the game, and tossing out the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO) that China has meticulously followed, and America has scornfully violated.
After twenty years of contest on a level
playing field during which time America took liberties with regard to which
rules of the game it will follow and which it will violate, China that obeyed
the rules, has nonetheless managed to repeatedly “cream” America, the
self-declared creator of the “best business model” the world has ever seen.
Eager to hide the truth about America’s
defeat fair and square, Tom Cotton wrote a highly deceptive article under the
title: “China’s Economic World War,” and the subtitle: “The nation’s admission
20 years ago into the WTO was a grave mistake. Congress can begin to rectify
this error by immediately terminating Beijing’s special trade status.” The
article was published on December 11, 2021 in National Review Online.
What Tom Cotton says basically is that during
the 20 years that China has been a member of the WTO, it was able to cheat its
way and grow its economy at an average rate that exceeded 13 percent a year.
The cockamamie implication here—as
opposed to the reality of the situation—is that membership in the WTO allows nations to cheat and prosper. This
compels us to pose a serious question: Is Tom Cotton implying that America,
which has been a member of the WTO for 26 years, did well economically because,
for a time, it had the playing field all to itself on which to cheat all it
wanted without a rival to check its excesses? A curious proposition indeed.
Be that as it may, Tom Cotton contends that China
has cheated not only when it dealt with America, but also when it dealt with
the rest of the world. To get away with it, says Cotton, China came up with a
trillion-dollar project called the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI.) Its ultimate
goal, Cotton goes on to say, is to finance infrastructure projects along the
trade routes that extend from Southeast Asia to Northwest Europe.
He explains that because some of the nations
along the route are poor, and lack the manpower and/or knowhow to make a
substantial contribution at realizing the projects that fall in their
jurisdictions, they relied on China supplying the manpower and financing to
complete them. This caught those nations in a debt trap, owing money to China
they cannot pay back, a trick that has the sinews of a colonial pursuit, says
Tom Cotton. Since this is a subject that I am familiar with, I ask you dear
reader, to allow me injecting my opinion into the conversion.
You cannot speak of a colonial undertaking
without mentioning gunboat diplomacy. That was the mainstay of the dealings
conducted by the colonial powers of old, even by America. China, by contrast,
never sent as little as a dinghy to intimidate or bomb a country that refused
to accept a Chinese business proposal or could not pay back a loan. Just look
at the contrast of what happened to Egypt 150 years ago against what happened
to that country more recently.
The French and then the Brits got involved in
the building and maintenance of the Suez Canal. They took control of the
project because Egypt could not meet its financial obligations, a handicap that
was caused by the devious dealings imposed on the country by the colonial
powers themselves. Eight decades after the Canal’s construction, the Egyptians
said enough was enough, and decided to nationalize the Canal. This brought wars
to Egypt that lasted a quarter century, all of them futile attempts by the
colonial powers to retake the lucrative Suez Canal.
Contrast that with the more recent events
when Egypt decided to build 20 new cities, including an ultra-modern capital,
and all that goes with such a plan. It includes widening the Suez Canal,
revamping the system of railways, building dozens of new colleges and
universities, some public, some private and some foreign, dotting every part of
the nation with industrial parks, opening the country’s landmass and its
maritime economic zones for the exploration of hydrocarbons, base and precious
metals, getting into the hi-tech industries in a big way … and much more.
What would you say is needed to accomplish
all of that? Foreign investment is what’s needed. In fact, the world, including
China, came knocking at Egypt’s door, offering to contribute and be a part of
the country’s renaissance. This meant that hardnosed negotiations had to take
place for every one of these projects.
So, what happened during the negotiations
that ensued between Egypt and China? Well, what happened was similar to what
happens all the time to everyone in such circumstances. The talks went smoothly
at times but not every time. What was China’s reaction when there was
disagreement? Sometimes China backed down, sometimes it did not. But at no
time, did China make a threatening move or suggested that gunboats were at sea
facing Egyptian coastal cities, ready to participate in the negotiations at gun
point. This would have been gunboat diplomacy, a behavior that is alien to the
Chinese.
Not only this proves that Tom Cotton is wet,
but there is an even bigger proof that he is dripping with drivel from his head
to his toe. You’ll know what this is about when you read the article that came
under the title: “Misreading China’s WTO Record Hurts Global Trade,” written by
Shang-Jin Wei, and published on December 11, 2021 in Project Syndicate.
Here is a compilation of the relevant parts
in that article:
“The
United States claims that China routinely violates its WTO obligations. In
fact, China’s WTO compliance record is broadly comparable to that of other
member countries. WTO data on trade disputes provides objective support for
this conclusion. Since 2001, there have been 47 complaints lodged against
China, accounting for 12.2% of all WTO dispute cases during that time.
Over the same period, there were more than twice as many complaints against the
US, accounting for 28.4% of the total. In other words, other WTO members regard
China as only half as likely as the US to have violated its obligations under
the organization’s rules. China also has a reasonable record of complying and
modifying its policies when a WTO dispute panel rules against it. Out of the 47
cases against China, only two required a second filing. By the same measure,
the US ignored 15 rulings against it”.
Is there anything more to say that will convince the readers that despite his name, Tom Cotton cannot absorb the wetness that his fantasies are generating?